TWO‐STEP INFECTION PROCESSES CAN LEAD TO COEVOLUTION BETWEEN FUNCTIONALLY INDEPENDENT INFECTION AND RESISTANCE PATHWAYS

There is growing evidence that successful infection of hosts by pathogens requires a series of independent steps. However, how multistep infection processes affect host–pathogen coevolution is unclear. We present a coevolutionary model, inspired by empirical observations from a range of host–pathogen systems, where the infection process consists of the following two steps: the first is for the pathogen to recognize and locate a suitable host, and the second is to exploit the host while evading immunity. Importantly, these two steps conform to different models of infection genetics: inverse‐gene‐for‐gene (IGFG) and gene‐for‐gene (GFG), respectively. We show that coevolution under this scenario can lead to coupled gene frequency changes across these two systems. In particular, selection often favors pathogens that are infective at the first, IGFG, step and hosts that are resistant at the second, GFG, step. Hence, there may be signals of positive selection between functionally independent systems whenever there are multistep processes determining resistance and infectivity. Such multistep infection processes are a fundamental, but overlooked feature of many host–pathogen interactions, and have important consequences for our understanding of host–pathogen coevolution.

[1]  A. Buckling,et al.  The effect of a bacteriophage on diversification of the opportunistic bacterial pathogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Howard S. Judelson,et al.  The spores of Phytophthora: weapons of the plant destroyer , 2005, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[3]  S. Frank Specific and non-specific defense against parasitic attack. , 2000, Journal of theoretical biology.

[4]  C. Lively,et al.  Modelling infection as a two-step process combining gene-for-gene and matching-allele genetics , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Curtis M. Lively,et al.  Infection genetics: gene-for-gene versus matching-alleles models and all points in between , 2002 .

[6]  M. Brockhurst,et al.  Epistatic Interactions Alter Dynamics of Multilocus Gene-for-Gene Coevolution , 2007, PloS one.

[7]  M. Hawes,et al.  Requirement for chemotaxis in pathogenicity of Agrobacterium tumefaciens on roots of soil-grown pea plants , 1989, Journal of bacteriology.

[8]  M. Körner,et al.  Snail-host-finding by Miracidia and Cercariae: Chemical Host Cues , 1995 .

[9]  R. Sommer,et al.  Host-finding behaviour in the nematode Pristionchus pacificus , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  D. Denver,et al.  Natural variation in life history and aging phenotypes is associated with mitochondrial DNA deletion frequency in Caenorhabditis briggsae , 2011, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[11]  Jian Yao,et al.  Chemotaxis Is Required for Virulence and Competitive Fitness of the Bacterial Wilt Pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum , 2006, Journal of bacteriology.

[12]  R. Lenski EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PLEIOTROPY AND EPISTASIS IN ESCHERICHIA COLI. I. VARIATION IN COMPETITIVE FITNESS AMONG MUTANTS RESISTANT TO VIRUS T4 , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  Jonathan D. G. Jones,et al.  The plant immune system , 2006, Nature.

[14]  H. H. Flor The Complementary Genic Systems in Flax and Flax Rust , 1956 .

[15]  S. Otto,et al.  Species Interactions and the Evolution of Sex , 2004, Science.

[16]  A. Sasaki Host-parasite coevolution in a multilocus gene-for-gene system , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  C. Laforsch,et al.  Resolving the infection process reveals striking differences in the contribution of environment, genetics and phylogeny to host-parasite interactions , 2011, BMC Biology.

[18]  S. Frank Problems inferring the specificity of plant—pathogen genetics , 1996, Evolutionary Ecology.

[19]  L. Baxter,et al.  Maintenance of genetic variation in plants and pathogens involves complex networks of gene-for-gene interactions. , 2009, Molecular plant pathology.

[20]  Sylvain Moineau,et al.  Bacteriophage resistance mechanisms , 2010, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[21]  Jeremy J. Burdon,et al.  Gene-for-gene coevolution between plants and parasites , 1992, Nature.

[22]  Joy Bergelson,et al.  Surveying Patterns in the Cost of Resistance in Plants , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[23]  Janis Antonovics,et al.  Inverse‐Gene‐for‐Gene Infection Genetics and Coevolutionary Dynamics , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[24]  M. Parker The nature of plant—parasite specificity , 1996, Evolutionary Ecology.

[25]  B. Finlay,et al.  Anti-Immunology: Evasion of the Host Immune System by Bacterial and Viral Pathogens , 2006, Cell.

[26]  James K. M. Brown,et al.  Plant-parasite coevolution: bridging the gap between genetics and ecology. , 2011, Annual review of phytopathology.

[27]  V. Barbe,et al.  Sensing and adhesion are adaptive functions in the plant pathogenic xanthomonads , 2011, BMC Evolutionary Biology.

[28]  J. Mansfield From bacterial avirulence genes to effector functions via the hrp delivery system: an overview of 25 years of progress in our understanding of plant innate immunity. , 2009, Molecular plant pathology.

[29]  T. Little,et al.  Genetic variation in the cellular response of Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Cladocera) to its bacterial parasite , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  U. Bernier,et al.  Human Emanations and Related Natural CompoundsThat Inhibit Mosquito Host-Finding Abilities , 2006 .

[31]  Dustin J Penn,et al.  Body odor similarity in noncohabiting twins. , 2005, Chemical senses.

[32]  S. Otto,et al.  Mutating away from your enemies: the evolution of mutation rate in a host-parasite system. , 2009, Theoretical population biology.

[33]  S. Garel,et al.  Screening for genes that wire the cerebral cortex , 2011, BMC Biology.

[34]  E. Lewis,et al.  Host-finding and invasion by entomopathogenic and plant-parasitic nematodes: evaluating the ability of laboratory bioassays to predict field results. , 2008, Journal of nematology.