4.5 Article

MHC class II genotype-by-pathogen genotype interaction for infection prevalence in a natural rodent-Borrelia system

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 76, 期 9, 页码 2067-2075

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.14590

关键词

Borrelia; coevolution; frequency-dependent selection; Myodes glareolus; ospC

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2011-05680, 2015-05418, 2015-05149]
  2. Crafoord Foundation [20150741]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2015-05418, 2011-05680, 2015-05149] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, it was found that MHC alleles (DQB*37) affect the susceptibility and resistance of bank voles to different strains of the tick-transmitted bacterium. Furthermore, the MHC alleles also influence the diversity of the infecting strains.
MHC genes are extraordinarily polymorphic in most taxa. Host-pathogen coevolution driven by negative frequency-dependent selection (NFDS) is one of the main hypotheses for the maintenance of such immunogenetic variation. Here, we test a critical but rarely tested assumption of this hypothesis-that MHC alleles affect resistance/susceptibility to a pathogen in a strain-specific way, that is, there is a host genotype-by-pathogen genotype interaction. In a field study of bank voles naturally infected with the tick-transmitted bacterium Borrelia afzelii, we tested for MHC class II (DQB) genotype-by-B. afzelii strain interactions for infection prevalence between 10 DQB alleles and seven strains. One allele (DQB*37) showed an interaction, such that voles carrying DQB*37 had higher prevalence of two strains and lower prevalence of one strain than individuals without the allele. These findings were corroborated by analyses of strain composition of infections, which revealed an effect of DQB*37 in the form of lower beta diversity among infections in voles carrying the allele. Taken together, these results provide rare support at the molecular genetic level for a key assumption of models of antagonistic coevolution through NFDS.

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

4.5
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