A clarification of transmission terms in host-microparasite models: numbers, densities and areas

Transmission is the driving force in the dynamics of any infectious disease. A crucial element in understanding disease dynamics, therefore, is the ‘transmission term’ describing the rate at which susceptible hosts are ‘converted’ into infected hosts by their contact with infectious material. Recently, the conventional form of this term has been increasingly questioned, and new terminologies and conventions have been proposed. Here, therefore, we review the derivation of transmission terms, explain the basis of confusion, and provide clarification. The root of the problem has been a failure to include explicit consideration of the area occupied by a host population, alongside both the number of infectious hosts and their density within the population. We argue that the terms ‘density-dependent transmission’ and ‘frequency-dependent transmission’ remain valid and useful (though a ‘fuller’ transmission term for the former is identified), but that the terms ‘mass action’, ‘true mass action’ and ‘pseudo mass action’ are all unhelpful and should be dropped. Also, contrary to what has often been assumed, the distinction between homogeneous and heterogeneous mixing in a host population is orthogonal to the distinction between density- and frequency-dependent transmission modes.

[1]  M. Begon,et al.  Transmission dynamics of a zoonotic pathogen within and between wildlife host species , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Odo Diekmann,et al.  How does transmission of infection depend on population size , 1995 .

[3]  P. Thrall,et al.  Polymorphism in sexual versus non-sexual disease transmission , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  Peter H. Thrall,et al.  Frequency-Dependent Disease Transmission and the Dynamics of the Silene-Ustilago Host-Pathogen System , 1995, The American Naturalist.

[5]  D. Pontier,et al.  Dynamics of a feline retrovirus (FeLV) in host populations with variable spatial structure , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  R. May,et al.  Population biology of infectious diseases: Part I , 1979, Nature.

[7]  M. Begon,et al.  Population and transmission dynamics of cowpox in bank voles: testing fundamental assumptions , 1998 .

[8]  Grenfell,et al.  Persistence thresholds for phocine distemper virus infection in harbour seal Phoca vitulina metapopulations , 1998 .

[9]  S. Benson,et al.  Chemical Kinetics , 2021, Fuel Effects on Operability of Aircraft Gas Turbine Combustors.

[10]  R. May,et al.  Population Biology of Infectious Diseases , 1982, Dahlem Workshop Reports.

[11]  B. Grenfell,et al.  Population biology of pseudorabies in swine. , 1990, American journal of veterinary research.

[12]  Giulio A. De Leo,et al.  Allometry and simple epidemic models for microparasites , 1996, Nature.

[13]  M.C.M. de Jong,et al.  Transmission of pseudorabies virus within pig populations is independent of the size of the population , 1995 .

[14]  H. McCallum,et al.  How should pathogen transmission be modelled? , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  R. Anderson Populations and Infectious Diseases: Ecology or Epidemiology? , 1991 .

[16]  R. May,et al.  Population biology of infectious diseases: Part II , 1979, Nature.

[17]  A. Dobson,et al.  Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Natural Populations , 1996 .

[18]  P. Thrall,et al.  SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES IN ANIMALS: ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS , 1996, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[19]  M. Hassell,et al.  A Generalized Model of Parasitoid, Venereal, and Vector-Based Transmission Processes , 1995, The American Naturalist.