Abstract
Parasite diversity is a central component of epidemiological dynamics. Parasite diversity is commonly studied across animal populations and species using metrics like parasite species richness; although these metrics generally assume no interactions among parasite species within a community, such interactions are common and important, and could affect parasite diversity estimates in ways that are currently difficult to account for. Nevertheless, the strength of these effects are currently unclear due to a relative rarity of community-level parasite interaction data. To address this gap, we use theoretical models to explore how interactions among pathogen strains might influence estimates of pathogen diversity, using parasite species richness as an example. We simulate interactions among co-infecting pathogens and assess their impact on strain detectability, informing population-level pathogen richness estimates. We find that such interactions introduce bias and uncertainty into richness measurements which is as yet unaccounted for, possibly impacting a wide range of studies. The magnitude of this bias is dependent on the frequency and the nature (competitive or facilitative) of interactions among coinfecting pathogens. Until more is known about the structure of these pathogen communities, we cannot fully gauge the extent of this bias. Coinfection studies may benefit from approaches developed in microbial ecology to quantify networked interactions among pathogens within hosts.
Full text
2,401 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Parasite diversity is a central component of epidemiological dynamics. Parasite diversity is commonly studied across animal populations and species using metrics like parasite species richness; although these metrics generally assume no interactions among parasite species within a community, such interactions are common and important, and could affect parasite diversity estimates in ways that are currently difficult to account for. Nevertheless, the strength of these effects are currently unclear due to a relative rarity of community-level parasite interaction data. To address this gap, we use theoretical models to explore how interactions among pathogen strains might influence estimates of pathogen diversity, using parasite species richness as an example. We simulate interactions among co-infecting pathogens and assess their impact on strain detectability, informing population-level pathogen richness estimates. We find that such interactions introduce bias and uncertainty into richness measurements which is as yet unaccounted for, possibly impacting a wide range of studies. The magnitude of this bias is dependent on the frequency and the nature (competitive or facilitative) of interactions among coinfecting pathogens. Until more is known about the structure of these pathogen communities, we cannot fully gauge the extent of this bias. Coinfection studies may benefit from approaches developed in microbial ecology to quantify networked interactions among pathogens within hosts.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X20D14
Life Sciences, Parasitology
coinfection, community ecology, parasite ecology, competition, facilitation, parasite diversity, community ecology, parasite ecology, Competition, Facilitation, parasite diversity
Published: 2025-02-05 09:27
CC-By Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Data and Code Availability Statement:
Code DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13840790, Data DOI: https://doi.org/10.25390/caryinstitute.28153118
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.