Building pyramids against the evolutionary emergence of pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutations allowing pathogens to escape host immunity promote the spread of infectious diseases in heterogeneous host populations and can lead to major epidemics. Understanding the conditions that slow down this evolution is key for the development of durable control strategies against pathogens. Here, we use theory and experiments to compare the efficacy of three strategies for the deployment of resistance: (i) amixingstrategy where the host population contains two single-resistant genotypes, (ii) apyramidingstrategy where the host carries a double-resistant genotype, (iii) acombiningstrategy where the host population is a mix of a single-resistant genotype and a double-resistant genotype. First, we use evolutionary epidemiology theory to clarify the interplay between demographic stochasticity and evolutionary dynamics to show that thepyramidingstrategy always yields lower probability of evolutionary emergence. Second, we test experimentally these predictions with the introduction of bacteriophages into bacterial populations where we manipulated the diversity and the depth of immunity using a Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-CRISPR associated (CRISPR-Cas) system. These biological assays confirm that pyramiding multiple defences into the same host genotype and avoiding combination with single-defence genotypes is a robust way to reduce pathogen evolutionary emergence. The experimental validation of these theoretical recommendations has practical implications in various areas, including for the optimal deployment of resistance varieties in agriculture and for the design of durable vaccination strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".