4.6 Article

Considering humans as habitat reveals evidence of successional disease ecology among human pathogens

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001770

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recognition of the significance of ecological principles in infectious disease dynamics has sparked a revival in epidemiological theory. Ecological succession theory has started to influence our understanding of the relationship between the individual microbiome and health, but it has not yet been applied to investigate broader population-level epidemiological dynamics. This study demonstrates that ecological characteristics of pathogens and parasites, rather than solely epidemiological features, are likely to have a meaningful impact on the age at which individuals are most susceptible to infection.
The realization that ecological principles play an important role in infectious disease dynamics has led to a renaissance in epidemiological theory. Ideas from ecological succession theory have begun to inform an understanding of the relationship between the individual microbiome and health but have not yet been applied to investigate broader, population-level epidemiological dynamics. We consider human hosts as habitat and apply ideas from succession to immune memory and multi-pathogen dynamics in populations. We demonstrate that ecologically meaningful life history characteristics of pathogens and parasites, rather than epidemiological features alone, are likely to play a meaningful role in determining the age at which people have the greatest probability of being infected. Our results indicate the potential importance of microbiome succession in determining disease incidence and highlight the need to explore how pathogen life history traits and host ecology influence successional dynamics. We conclude by exploring some of the implications that inclusion of successional theory might have for understanding the ecology of diseases and their hosts.

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