Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T02:30:51.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of mating probability on the population genetics of nematodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

A. Galvani  and
S. Gupta
A. Galvani
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Trust Centre for Epidemiology of Infectious Disease, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK
S. Gupta*
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Trust Centre for Epidemiology of Infectious Disease, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK
*
*Fax 01865 281225, E-mail sunetra.gupta@zoology.oxford.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We review how constraints on the mating probability of female worms by segregation within individual host guts form a critical element in the parasite population structure of nematodes. We consider the effects of these constraints on the population genetics of nematodes under various assumptions regarding worm competition as reflected in the relationship between the abundance of a certain genotype within the gut and the probability of reproductive success. The consequences for the emergence of resistance to drugs and immunotherapy and implications for host-parasite coevolution are discussed. We also review evidence for genetic heterogeneity in parasite populations as a necessary prerequisite for the applicability of mating probability models designed to assess the population genetics of nematodes.

Type
Symposium Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 295 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, R.M. & May, R.M. (1985) Helminth infections of humans: mathematical models, population dynamics and control. Advances in Parasitology 24, 1–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R.M. & May, R.M. (1991) Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, R.M., May, R.M. & Gupta, S. (1989) Non-linear phenomena in host-parasite interactions. Parasitology 99, S59–S79.Google Scholar
Anderson, R.M., May, R.M. & Gupta, S. (1995) Genetic heterogeneity in helminths: a reply. Parasitology 111, 537–538.Google Scholar
Bellaby, T., Robinson, K. & Wakelin, D. (1995) Isolates of Trichuris muris vary in their ability to elicit protective immune responses to infection in mice. Parasitology 111, 353–357.Google Scholar
Bolas-Fernandez, F. & Wakelin, D. (1989) Infectivity of Trichinella isolates in mice is determined by host immune responsiveness. Parasitology 99, 83–88.Google Scholar
Bolas-Fernandez, F. & Wakelin, D. (1990) Infectivity, antigenicity and host response to isolates of the genus Trichinella. Parasitology 100, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currie, R.M., Needham, C.S., Drake, L.J., Cooper, E.S. & Bundy, D.A.P. (1998) Antigenic variability in Trichuris trichiura populations. Parasitology 117 (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, C. & Tang, J. (1991) Genetic variation and host-parasite relations: Nematospiroides dubius in mice. Journal of Parasitology 77, 884–889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, E.M. & Kennedy, M.W. (1991) Heterogeneity in the expression of surface-exposed epitopes among larvae of Ascaris lumbricoides. Parasite Immunology 13, 219–225.Google Scholar
Goyal, P.K. & Wakelin, D. (1993) Vaccination against Trichinella spiralis in mice using antigens from different isolates. Parasitology 107, 311–317.Google Scholar
Koyama, K. & Ito, Y. (1996) Comparative studies on immune responses to infection in susceptible B10.BR mice infected with different strains of the murine nematode parasite Trichuris muris. Parasite Immunology 18, 257–263.Google Scholar
MacDonald, G. (1965) The dynamics of helminth infections, with special reference to schistosomes. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 59, 489–506.Google Scholar
Maizels, R.M., Bundy, D.A.P., Selkirk, M.E., Smith, D.F. & Anderson, R.M. (1993) Immunological modulation and evasion by helminth parasites in human populations. Nature 365, 797–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, R.M. (1977) Togetherness among schistosomes: its effects on the dynamics of the infection. Mathematical Biosciences 35, 301–343.Google Scholar
Read, A.F. & Viney, M.E. (1996) Helminth immunogenetics: why bother? Parasitology Today 12, 337–343.Google Scholar
Saul, A. (1995) Computer model of the maintenance and selection of genetic heterogeneity in polygamous helminths. Parasitology 111, 531–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, J., Dobson, C. & McManus, D.P. (1995) Antigens in phenotypes of Heligmosomoides polygyrus raised selectively from different strains of mice. International Journal for Parasitology 25, 847–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tcheum Tchuent, L.A., Jourdane, J. & Southgate, V.R. (1994) Mating competition between Schistosoma mansoni and S. intercalatum: epidemiological implications. Abstract in The British Society for Parasitology, Spring Meeting.Google Scholar
Wakelin, D. & Goyal, P.K. (1996) Trichinella isolates: parasite variability and host responses. International Journal for Parasitology 26, 471–481.Google Scholar
Yokogawa, M. (1985) JOICEP's experience in the control of ascariasis within an integrated programme. pp. 265–278in Crompton, D.W.T., Nesheim, M.C. & Paulowski, Z.S. (Eds) Ascariasis and its public health significance. London, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar