Feedback Between Coevolution and Epidemiology Can Help or Hinder the Maintenance of Genetic Variation in Host-Parasite Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding if and when coevolution helps maintains genetic variation in hosts of a directly-transmissible pathogen is fundamental to quantifying the prevalence and impact of coevolution on disease epidemiology. Here, we extend our previous work on the maintenance of genetic variation in a classic matching-alleles coevolutionary model by exploring the effects of ecological and epidemiological feedbacks, where both allele frequencies and population sizes are allowed to vary over time. In general, we find that coevolution rarely maintains more host genetic variation than expected under neutral genetic drift alone. When and if coevolution maintains or depletes genetic variation relative to neutral drift is determined, predominantly, by two factors: the deterministic stability of the Red Queen allele frequency cycles and the frequency at which pathogen fixation occurs, as this results in directional selection and the depletion of genetic variation in the host. Compared to purely coevolutionary models with constant host and pathogen population sizes, ecological and epidemiological feedbacks stabilize Red Queen cycles deterministically, but population fluctuations in the pathogen increase the rate of pathogen fixation, especially in epidemiological models. Taken together our results illustrate the importance of considering the ecological and epidemiological context in which coevolution occurs when examining the impact of Red Queen cycles on genetic variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".