Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T21:57:54.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The role of models in translating within-host dynamics to parasite evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2015

MEGAN A. GREISCHAR*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada
SARAH E. REECE
Affiliation:
Institutes of Evolutionary Biology, and Immunology and Infection Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FL, Scotland, UK
NICOLE MIDEO
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada
*
*Corresponding author: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada. E-mail: megan.greischar@utoronto.ca

Summary

Mathematical modelling provides an effective way to challenge conventional wisdom about parasite evolution and investigate why parasites ‘do what they do’ within the host. Models can reveal when intuition cannot explain observed patterns, when more complicated biology must be considered, and when experimental and statistical methods are likely to mislead. We describe how models of within-host infection dynamics can refine experimental design, and focus on the case study of malaria to highlight how integration between models and data can guide understanding of parasite fitness in three areas: (1) the adaptive significance of chronic infections; (2) the potential for tradeoffs between virulence and transmission; and (3) the implications of within-vector dynamics. We emphasize that models are often useful when they highlight unexpected patterns in parasite evolution, revealing instead why intuition yields the wrong answer and what combination of theory and data are needed to advance understanding.

Information

Type
Special Issue Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The effective propagation number offers a way to decouple parasite proliferation from resource availability. In (A) and (B), the different outcomes observed at time t + 1 can be entirely explained by differences in the starting number of uninfected red blood cells, St, and infected red blood cells, It, with no need to invoke immune clearance; thus, the effective propagation numbers (Pe) are the same in both scenarios. In (C), resources were sufficiently abundant, but the outcome was a smaller number of infected red blood cells than expected, reflected in a smaller effective propagation number. Importantly, the greatest fold-change in parasitemia and parasite density occurs in (A), and, without knowledge of red blood cell densities, one might incorrectly infer that immunity is having a greater impact in both (B) and (C). While Pe would typically be estimated by regression (Metcalf et al.2011), we calculate it here assuming that Pe = It + 1/(ItSt).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Selection need not maximize the duration of infection. Two hypothetical strains differ in their transmission rates over the course of infection, and selection would be expected to maximize the lifetime transmission success. In panel A, both strains maintain identical transmission rates through time, except that Strain 2 can maintain infection (and transmission) longer and would hence be favoured by selection. In contrast, panel B assumes that shorter infections allow substantially higher rates of transmission. Strain 2 has the greatest cumulative transmission success, despite causing a shorter infection (e.g. by killing the host more quickly), and should thus be favoured over Strain 1.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Transmission investment changes within-host dynamics. We assume each life stage (asexual, early gametocyte development, late gametocyte development, gametocyte maturity) lasts only one day (as has been reported for Plasmodium chabaudi infections of mice, Landau and Boulard, 1978; Reece et al.2003). For visual clarity, we have deliberately oversimplified the malaria biology: we assume that at first observation infections consist of two asexual parasites and two developing gametocytes, that each asexual produces two progeny, and that each of those progeny can develop as either an asexual parasite or a gametocyte. In (A), investing 50% of progeny into gametocyte production exactly balances the 2-fold replicative capacity of the asexual parasites, leading to constant parasite biomass and gametocyte abundance. In (B), transmission investment is increased on day 4 only, resulting in more developing gametocytes on day 5 (boxed) and a transient increase in mature gametocytes on day 7, followed by a reduction in parasite biomass and gametocyte numbers. Finally, if transmission investment is decreased on day 4 only (C), it leads to fewer developing gametocytes on day 5 (boxed), a transient reduction in mature gametocytes on day 7, and, subsequently, a sustained increase in gametocyte numbers and total parasite biomass.