4.6 Article

Limiting opportunities for cheating stabilizes virulence in insect parasitic nematodes

期刊

EVOLUTIONARY APPLICATIONS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 462-470

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eva.12348

关键词

biological control; cooperation; evolution of virulence; Heterorhabditis floridensis; pest management; stability

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council Research Fellowship
  2. USDA-ARS
  3. NERC [NE/E012671/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/E012671/2] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cooperative secretion of virulence factors by pathogens can lead to social conflict when cheating mutants exploit collective secretion, but do not contribute to it. If cheats outcompete cooperators within hosts, this can cause loss of virulence. Insect parasitic nematodes are important biocontrol tools that secrete a range of significant virulence factors. Critically, effective nematodes are hard to maintain without live passage, which can lead to virulence attenuation. Using experimental evolution, we tested whether social cheating might explain unstable virulence in the nematode Heterorhabditis floridensis by manipulating relatedness via multiplicity of infection (MOI), and the scale of competition. Passage at high MOI, which should reduce relatedness, led to loss of fitness: virulence and reproductive rate declined together and all eight independent lines suffered premature extinction. As theory predicts, relatedness treatments had more impact under stronger global competition. In contrast, low MOI passage led to more stable virulence and increased reproduction. Moreover, low MOI lineages showed a trade-off between virulence and reproduction, particularly for lines under stronger between-host competition. Overall, this study indicates that evolution of virulence theory is valuable for the culture of biocontrol agents: effective nematodes can be improved and maintained if passage methods mitigate possible social conflicts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据