Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T13:21:25.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Host–Parasite Interactions in African Buffalo: A Community- Level Perspective

from Part III - Diseases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2023

Alexandre Caron
Affiliation:
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), France
Daniel Cornélis
Affiliation:
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) and Foundation François Sommer, France
Philippe Chardonnet
Affiliation:
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) SSC Antelope Specialist Group
Herbert H. T. Prins
Affiliation:
Wageningen Universiteit, The Netherlands

Summary

The African buffalo is host to numerous parasites, including microbial pathogens such as viruses, and bacteria and eukaryotic organisms such as worms and protozoa. Because buffalo are an important source of livestock diseases, understanding the ecology of the parasite community within African buffalo populations has both theoretical and applied importance. Competitive and synergetic interactions between parasites occur at both within- and between-host scales, and the African buffalo has served as a wildlife model for understanding how such interactions impact individual host health and parasite population dynamics. We describe the current understanding of the community ecology of parasites in African buffalo, identify general patterns that have emerged across parasite taxa, and describe key future research directions. Throughout the chapter we highlight important tools and techniques for studying parasite communities in wildlife populations.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

Introduction

Parasites, spanning viruses, bacteria, helminths, protozoa and arthropods, live within or on a host, often affecting individual host health, survival and reproduction. Furthermore, these individual-level effects of parasites can have consequences that cascade to the population, community and ecosystem levels (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Fenton and Tompkins2019). Historically, host–parasite interactions were studied from a one host–one parasite perspective. However, given that most hosts are infected with more than one type of parasite simultaneously (Cox, Reference Cox2001), the study of concurrent infection (i.e. coinfection) has gained increasing attention from ecologists, epidemiologists, veterinarians and biomedical scientists (Hoarau et al., Reference Hoarau, Mavingui and Lebarbenchon2020; Mabbott, Reference Mabbott2018; Salgame et al., Reference Salgame, Yap and Gause2013). Crucially, wildlife studies occupy a unique niche in this research area because they can help uncover the real-world contexts in which coinfection, and the interactions occurring between coinfecting parasites, are most important (Ezenwa, Reference Ezenwa2016).

Just like free-living species in ecological communities, parasite species live in communities within their hosts where they interact by competing against or facilitating one another, with consequences for parasite community structure, host health and host fitness (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019; Graham, Reference Graham2008; Pedersen and Fenton, Reference Pedersen and Fenton2007; Telfer et al., Reference Telfer, Lambin and Birtles2010). Many of the initial efforts to study parasite interactions in wildlife focused on co-occurrence patterns, revealing that coinfection is common, and that parasites and pathogens interact within hosts both directly and indirectly (e.g. Bush and Holmes, Reference Bush and Holmes1986; Lello et al., Reference Lello, Boag and Fenton2004). For instance, parasites may compete for space or resources (Budischak et al., Reference Budischak, O’Neal, Jolles and Ezenwa2018a; Clerc et al., Reference Clerc, Fenton, Babayan and Pedersen2019), such that the presence of one parasite decreases the likelihood another succeeds at growth and replication. Alternatively, one parasite may increase the success of another by providing resources or space (Dutt et al., Reference Dutt, Anthony and Andrivon2021; Zélé et al., Reference Zélé, Magalhães, Kéfi and Duncan2018). Parasite community interactions are further governed by the host immune response, where cross-immunity may cause one parasite to negatively affect the establishment and growth of another (Raberg et al., Reference Raberg, de Roode and Bell2006), or where one parasite may suppress the host immune response in a way that is beneficial to other parasites (Graham, Reference Graham2008). Recently, advances in molecular, immunological and statistical methods have enabled an increasingly mechanistic and/or predictive understanding of these types of parasite interactions in wild species (e.g. Clerc et al., Reference Clerc, Fenton, Babayan and Pedersen2019; Fountain-Jones et al., Reference Fountain-Jones, Packer and Jacquot2019; McDonald et al., Reference McDonald, Longo, Lips and Zamudio2020).

Studies of African buffalo have played a key role in advancing research on wildlife coinfection. Multiple facets of African buffalo ecology and life history make them an excellent system for understanding parasite interactions in free-living animals (Ezenwa et al., Reference Ezenwa, Jolles, Beechler, Budischak, Gorsich, Wilson, Fenton and Tompkins2019). Buffalo are relatively long-lived, large-bodied, gregarious animals that are common throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, buffalo are host to a broad diversity of parasites, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths (Ezenwa et al., Reference Ezenwa, Jolles, Beechler, Budischak, Gorsich, Wilson, Fenton and Tompkins2019). These attributes allow parasite studies to be conducted on relatively large numbers of individuals across multiple spatiotemporal scales (Garabed et al., Reference Garabed, Jolles and Garira2020). Physiological similarity between domestic cattle and African buffalo further enables the use of readily available physiological (Couch et al., Reference Couch, Movius and Jolles2017), immunological (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Broughton and Bell2012) and diagnostic tools (Glidden et al., Reference Glidden, Beechler and Buss2018), as well as therapeutics to measure animal responses to infection, describe parasite community composition (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019), and manipulate host–parasite interactions (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015). In this chapter, we describe insights on parasite interactions derived from the study of African buffalo. Focusing on results drawn from two large studies performed in Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa (see Box 11.1), we discuss how pairwise and multi-parasite perspectives have been used to understand which parasite taxa interact most strongly, the mechanisms accounting for these interactions and the implications for both hosts and parasites. We also highlight general patterns that have emerged across parasite systems. We outline key technical tools, both computational and laboratory, that facilitate the ability to draw strong inferences and link phenomena across scales. We conclude by identifying future research directions that will help advance scientists’ understanding of the causes and consequences of parasite interactions.

Box 11.1 Studying Parasite Interactions in the Wild

Experimental and longitudinal approaches are important ingredients for studying parasite interactions in natural systems. By directly manipulating parasites in situ, researchers can identify how co-occurring parasites, as well as hosts, respond to changes in the parasite community and simultaneously investigate factors both internal and external to the host that govern variation in observed responses. Likewise, longitudinal approaches allow for parasite and host characteristics to be tracked over time, providing insight about the order in which events occur and helping to distinguish cause from effect. Either approach is valuable on its own, but in combination, these two methods represent a powerful tool for unravelling the causes and consequences of parasite interactions in free-ranging wildlife. Studies on wild African buffalo in KNP used these approaches to address a range of questions about parasite interactions.

Study 1 followed ~200 free-ranging young female buffalo captured from two herds in southern KNP over a four-year period. The animals were fitted with VHF collars (see Figure 11.1a) with recaptures occurring every 6 months to monitor changes in parasite communities, host physiology, health and performance (see Table 11.1). These animals were captured in the south-eastern portion of the park and animals were allowed to move and disperse as normal (Spaan et al., Reference Spaan, Epps, Ezenwa and Jolles2019). A goal of the study was to understand how gastrointestinal worms and bovine tuberculosis (bTB) interact, so half of the study animals received a long-acting anthelmintic drug applied every 6 months to reduce their worm burdens, while the other half were used as controls. Study animals were bTB-free at the onset of the experiment so that effects of anthelmintic treatment on bTB infection incidence and severity could be quantified.

Figure 11.1

(a) African buffalo fitted with a VHF collar.

(b) Double fence surrounding the 900 ha semi-natural enclosure containing the buffalo herd of Study 2.

Table 11.1 Measures of health and immunity used in African buffalo.

MeasureMethodCitation
Physiology and health
Body conditionManual palpation of buffaloEzenwa et al. (Reference Ezenwa, Jolles and O’Brien2009)
Pregnancy statusRectal palpationBeechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015)
Lactation statusManual milking of teatsNA
Cortisol as a measure of stressRadioimmunoassay of faecal samplesSpaan et al. (Reference Spaan, Pitts and Buss2017)
Haematocrit and red blood cell measurementsHaematological assessment of whole bloodBeechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Jolles and Ezenwa2009)
Total protein, albumin, kidney and liver enzymesChemistry profile on plasmaCouch et al. (Reference Couch, Movius and Jolles2017)
Immunity
White blood cell countsBlood smear on whole bloodBeechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Jolles and Ezenwa2009)
Bacteriacidal abilityBacterial killing assay on plasma and whole bloodBeechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Broughton and Bell2012)
Lymphocyte proliferation ability (LPA)Whole blood LPABeechler (Reference Beechler2013)
Cytokines (IFNy, IL4, TNFa, IL12)Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of plasmaBeechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015); Ezenwa and Jolles (Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015); Glidden et al. (Reference Glidden, Beechler and Buss2018)
Acute phase proteins (SAA, Hapto)ELISA of plasmaGlidden et al. (Reference Glidden, Beechler and Buss2018)
Total globulinsChemistry profile on plasmaCouch et al. (Reference Couch, Movius and Jolles2017)

Study 2 followed one herd of ~80 mixed age and sex buffalo, housed in a 900 ha semi-natural, predator-free enclosure in central KNP (see Figure 11.1b) that had been in place since the early 2000s and managed by KNP veterinary wildlife services. In this ‘mesocosm’ setting, study animals were captured every 2–3 months to collect finer-scale information on parasite communities and host traits. This short capture interval allowed for a better understanding of transmission patterns of microparasites like viruses and bacteria that are quick to spread throughout a population.

For both studies, samples (e.g. blood, faeces) collected at capture were used to quantify and describe the parasite community. These samples were also used to perform a suite of assays to assess host physiology, immunity and overall health (see Table 11.1). In combination with information about external environmental conditions (e.g. seasonality), the data on host traits and parasites were used to test a range of hypotheses about the nature and implications of parasite interactions. For both studies, animal handling and scientific permits were acquired from appropriate institutions (see Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015 for Study 1 and Jolles et al., Reference Jolles, Gorsich and Gubbins2021 for Study 2 permit information).

Parasite Interactions: Combining Pairwise and Multi-Species Perspectives

Studies of parasite interactions in African buffalo have ranged in scale from studies focused on pairwise parasite interactions to studies examining interactions among multiple co-occurring parasites using taxonomic and trait-based approaches (Table 11.2). In most cases, a key goal of the work has been to uncover how the presence of more than one parasite modifies host and parasite responses to infection. Below, we review these studies to identify notable commonalities across them as well as methods used to develop a multi-parasite perspective. Findings highlight the value of pairwise and multi-parasite perspectives: integrating both perspectives identified immunological and ecological mechanisms underlying pairwise interactions and assessed the relative importance of those mechanisms in more complex parasite communities.

Table 11.2 Summary of research on parasite interactions in African buffalo. The studies span a range of designs, including experimental (E), longitudinal (L) and case control (CC) studies. The design column indicates the study design type and whether the data were derived from Study 1 or 2 as described in Box 11.1. The scale column indicates whether the study focused on two parasites (pairwise), a group of parasites (e.g. helminths or Theileria), or all of the parasites that were screened (WC, for whole community). It also describes whether the interaction was between microparasites (micro–micro), macroparasites (macro–macro) or both (macro–micro). The interaction type and effects columns define whether the parasites positively (facilitation) or negatively (competition) influenced each other during a subsequent observation or across multiple observations (succession).

Parasites (diseases)DesignScaleInteraction typeEffects on other parasite/parasite communities/hostCitation
Theme 1: Pairwise studies
Mycobacterium bovis (bTB) vs. Brucella abortus (brucellosis)L – 1Pairwise. Micro–microFacilitation and competitionEffects on other parasite: Brucellosis infection was twice as likely in buffalo with bTB compared to uninfected buffalo, but brucellosis infection was not correlated with risk of bTB. Mathematical modelling suggests the net effect of bTB on transmission and mortality results in competition at the population-level: R0 and endemic prevalence predictions for bTB were lower in populations in which both pathogens co-occur.
Effects on host: Mortality rates were higher after individuals became infected with either bTB or brucellosis, with the highest risk occurring in co-infected buffalo. Neither infection reduced fecundity, measured by calf observations.
Gorsich et al. (Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018),
bTB vs. helminthsE – 1Pairwise. Micro–macroCompetitionEffects on other parasite: Experimental anthelmintic treatment did not influence risk of bTB. The predicted R0 of bTB is 8-fold higher in treated populations due to decreases in mortality when worm burdens decline.
Effects on host: Mortality rates were lower in buffalo that received the treatment compared to controls.
Ezenwa and Jolles (Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015),
bTB vs. helminth resistanceL/E – 1Pairwise, Micro–macroCompetitionEffects on other parasite: There was no effect of natural host resistance to worms on bTB infection risk.
Effects on host: Worm-resistant individuals were more likely to die of bTB than were non-resistant individuals despite having lower worm burdens, and bTB progressed more quickly in the lungs of non-resistant individuals. Anthelmintic treatment moderated but did not eliminate this pattern, implicating ‘resistance’ to worms and not simply current worm infection as a driver of the interaction.
Ezenwa et al. (Reference Ezenwa, Budischak and Buss2021)
bTB vs. Rift Valley fever virusL – 1Pairwise. Micro–microFacilitationEffects on other parasite: RVF infection was twice as likely in buffalo with bTB compared to uninfected buffalo. Mathematical modelling suggests this results in larger and faster spreading RVF outbreaks.
Effects on host: Foetal abortion rates were 6.6 times higher in coinfected buffalo compared to infection with RVF alone.
Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015)
Helminths, namely Haemonchus spp. vs. Cooperia fuelleborniE – 1Pairwise. Macro–macroEffects on host: Host body condition was lower in buffalo that underwent experimental anthelmintic treatment compared to controls. In controls, increases in Haemonchus egg counts were negatively associated with changes in condition, while increases in Cooperia egg counts were associated with increases in condition. Neither parasite directly influenced survival or fecundity (likelihood of being pregnant or lactating). However, treated buffalo had higher survival and both treated and untreated buffalo in good condition had both higher survival and fecundity.Budischak et al. (Reference Budischak, Wiria and Hamid2018b)
Schistosoma matthei vs. Cooperia fuelleborniL – 1Pairwise. Macro–macroFacilitationEffects on other parasite: Schistosome burdens varied seasonally. Wet season gains in burden were not correlated with helminth coinfection, but coinfection did influence the magnitude of dry season reductions in burden. Buffalo infected with Cooperia maintained higher schistosome burdens throughout the dry season.Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Jolles and Budischak2017)
Parasites (diseases)DesignScaleInteraction typeEffects on other parasite/parasite communities/hostCitation
Theme 2: Multi-parasite studies applying taxonomic approaches
6 gastrointestinal helminthsFootnote a–E – 1HelminthsSuccessionEffects on parasite community: After anthelmintic treatment, helminth communities in treated buffalo had a lower total abundance and higher diversity compared to communities in undisturbed control buffalo. With increasing time since treatment, treated helminth communities resembled those found in undisturbed control buffalo.Budischak et al. (Reference Budischak, Hoberg and Abrams2016)
6 respiratory pathogens associated with bovine respiratory diseaseFootnote bL – 1WCFacilitationEffects on parasite community: Five of the respiratory pathogens were continuously circulating. Viral coinfection was the best predictor of viral infection; host physiology and season had little effect on odds of viral infection. Coinfection with bTB was positively associated with risk of BRSV but none of the other pathogens. Anti-helminthic treatment was not associated with any of the respiratory pathogens.Glidden et al. (Reference Glidden, Coon and Beechler2021)
10 Theileria phylotypesFootnote c–L – 1TheileriaFacilitation, competition, successionEffects on parasite community: Interaction networks change over time; young animals are infected with Theileria interaction networks composed of many negative and positive interactions, while adult interaction networks are composed of three positive interactions. 7/10 phylotypes exist with 80–90% prevalence in adult animals, this coexistence is likely the result of phylotype-specific immunity and facilitation. Two phylotypes infect young animals early (within 1 month), but are later displaced in adult animals and facilitation.Glidden et al. (Reference Glidden, Coon and Beechler2021),
Theme 3: Multi-parasite studies applying trait-based perspectives
bTB, brucellosis, 3 haemoparasites,Footnote d 6 respiratory pathogensFootnote b coccidia, strongyle nematodes, Schistosoma mattheiC–C – 1WCEffects on parasite community: Animals that acquired bTB experienced a greater increase in parasite assemblage richness and functional richness compared to age-matched buffalo that did not acquire bTB. The traits of parasite communities after bTB were less variable (measured as multivariate dispersion) and dominated by contact-transmitted parasites with simple life cycles and fast replication times.Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019), Figure 11.4
11 haemoparasitesFootnote d vs. BTB, brucellosis, helminths, coccidia, ticks (Ambylomma hebraeum, Rhipicephalus spp.)L – 1WCFacilitation and competitionEffects on parasite community: Parasites infecting the same tissue type were associated with the probability of haemoparasite infection (e.g. other haemoparasites). For pairs of haemoparasites, the direction of the association can be predicted based on shared resources, cross immunity, and having a shared vector. In contrast, associations between haemoparasites and parasites infecting other tissue types were weak or non-existent.Henrichs et al. (Reference Henrichs, Oosthuizen and Troskie2016)
Tick-borne parasites
Gastrointestinal parasites
Respiratory pathogens
–L – 2WCEffects on parasite community: Parasite communities follow patterns of succession similar to free-living communities. The median age of first infection differs between parasite taxa, with tick-borne and helminths parasites first occurring in animals less than 1 year old and directly transmitted infections first occurring after 2 years.Combrink et al. (Reference Combrink, Glidden and Beechler2020)

a Cooperia fulleborni, Haemonchus sp., Parabronema sp., Trichostrongylus sp., Africanastrongylus giganticus, Africanastrongylus buceros.

b Bovine adenovirus-3 (AD-3), bovine herpes virus (BHV), bovine parainfluenza-3 (Pi-3), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), Mycoplasma bovis (MB), Mannheimia haemolytica (MH).

c T. parva, T. sp (buffalo), T. sp (bougasvlei), T. velifera, T. velifera B, T. mutans-like 1, T. mutans-like 2, T. mutans-like 3, T. mutans, T. mutans MSD.

d Anaplasma centrale, A. marginale, A. sp. Omatjenne, A. phagocytophilum, Babesia sp., Ehrlichia ruminantum, Theileria parva, T. mutans, T. sp (buffalo), T. sp (sable), T. velifera.

Figure 11.2

(a) The estimated reproductive number (R0) of bTB in buffalo subpopulations that did (treated) versus did not (control) receive anthelmintic drug treatment. R0 was approximately eight times higher for treated individuals (2 vs. 15.5), with upper and lower estimates of 3.4 and 69.8, respectively.

(b) The estimated prevalence of bTB in buffalo populations with single bTB (left panel, line with circle) or concurrent bTB and brucellosis (left panel, line with triangle) infections. bTB prevalence declined in the presence of brucellosis, but there was no reciprocal effect of bTB on Brucella prevalence (right panel, line with circle vs. line with triangle).

The studies of pairwise parasite interactions cover a broad taxonomic scope, including bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths (Table 11.2, Theme 1). They investigate parasite interactions and the consequences for hosts and parasites in real-world settings. For example, in laboratory studies, immunological mechanisms of interaction between parasites are well described, but if and how these interactions manifest in wild populations has been unclear. Early work in African buffalo provided seminal evidence that cross-regulated immune responses can shape parasite population dynamics (Jolles et al., Reference Jolles, Ezenwa and Etienne2008), and that as in laboratory rodents, infection with parasites like gastrointestinal helminths can induce immune cross-regulation (Ezenwa et al., Reference Ezenwa, Etienne, Luikart, Beja-Pereira and Jolles2010). Studies in the KNP buffalo population (Box 11.1) expanded on this foundation using manipulative experiments and longitudinal tracking of individuals to confirm that in a wild setting, clearance of one type of parasite (gastrointestinal helminths) has ramifications for host immunity and the severity of infection with a second parasite, in this case Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015). Another key result from the pairwise studies was the broad importance of bTB on host immunity, health and survival. M. bovis infection was associated with lower innate immunity and higher inflammatory cytokine secretion, measured as Escherichia coli killing capacity and interleukin-12 concentration, respectively (Beechler et al. Reference Beechler, Broughton and Bell2012, Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015). Accordingly, prior infection with bTB was associated with an increased likelihood of acquiring both Brucella abortus (the causative agent of brucellosis) and Rift Valley fever virus (RVF) (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015; Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). These studies provide a starting platform for investigating the consequences of bTB for a wider range of co-occurring parasites. Given the broad effects of bTB on African buffalo survival, health and susceptibility to other parasites, mechanistic models are useful to predict the consequences of bTB for the population-level dynamics of a second parasite. For example, Gorsich et al. (Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018) parameterized a mechanistic model of bTB–brucellosis dynamics that represented a host’s increased likelihood of acquiring brucellosis and increased mortality rates if the host was also infected with bTB. The model predicted the net consequences of these effects for prevalence and R0, thereby linking the within-host mechanisms explored in previous papers (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Broughton and Bell2012, Reference Beechler, Manore and Reininghaus2015) to population-level patterns of disease spread.

Further studies investigated multi-parasite interactions by applying a multi-parasite approach (Table 11.2, Themes 2 and 3). These studies can be conceptually divided into those that quantify higher-order association patterns that emerge from complex multi-parasite interactions (Theme 2) and those that simplify complex multi-parasite interactions into generalizable patterns (Theme 3). The former relies on taxonomic approaches where parasites are classified according to their taxonomy, while the latter applies a trait-based perspective where parasites are classified by their biological features, such as how they differ in physiological, morphological or life-history traits. The two approaches reveal how different dimensions of the parasite community respond to change. However, because traits or trait distributions can be directly linked to host or environmental conditions, trait-based approaches allow for more mechanistic predictions about how a community may change in response to coinfection (see McGill et al., Reference McGill, Enquist, Weiher and Westoby2006 for a review of traits-based approaches in ecology).

Importantly, the multi-parasite approaches (Table 11.2, Themes 2 and 3) and the pairwise approaches (Table 11.2, Theme 1) have proven highly complementary. For example, Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019) applied a trait-based approach to evaluate how parasite community composition – including 14 parasites ranging from viruses, bacteria, protozoa and helminths – differed before versus after buffalo were infected with bTB. Interestingly, parasite communities tended to have higher taxonomic and functional richness (e.g. unique parasite traits) after hosts acquired bTB infection (Figure 11.4a). Furthermore, while the number of unique parasites tended to increase after bTB, the traits of these parasites were functionally similar to each other, as quantified by multivariate dispersion. Multivariate dispersion measures the amount of trait space occupied by a given community; thus, after bTB infection, parasite communities became more homogenous in terms of their traits even though the communities contained more species. This pattern was associated with communities becoming dominated by certain traits (e.g. contact transmission, fast replication rate), with less representation of other traits (slow transmission rate, environmental transmission).

Taxonomic studies occurring in the same system corroborate this result. The dominance of contact-transmitted, fast-replicating parasite taxa is supported by a longitudinal, multi-parasite study investigating associations among five contact-transmitted, fast-replicating respiratory pathogens (Theme 2). This analysis showed that after accounting for bTB infection, pathogen co-occurrence explained the largest proportion of variation in three focal viruses (bovine adenovirus-3, bovine herpes virus-1, bovine parainfluenza-3), with all three positively influenced by coinfection (Glidden et al., Reference Glidden, Coon and Beechler2021). Additionally, the lack of slowly transmitted or environmentally transmitted pathogens is supported by pairwise-longitudinal and experimental studies investigating associations between bTB, brucellosis and gastrointestinal nematodes (Theme 1). Coinfection with both gastrointestinal nematodes and brucellosis was associated with higher mortality in bTB-positive individuals (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015; Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). These examples illustrate the value of combining approaches to investigate parasite communities.

Notable Commonalties Across Studies

Studying diverse parasite interactions can reveal commonalities across combinations of parasites that provide new insight into how the consequences of coinfection manifest in nature. At least one such common thread has emerged from studies of parasite interactions in wild African buffalo – the presence of conflicting outcomes across scales. Two studies of pairwise parasite interactions, one focused on interactions between gastrointestinal helminths and bTB (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015), the other focused on interactions between brucellosis and bTB (Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018), both found evidence that from a host perspective, whether the outcome of coinfection is negative or positive differs at the individual host versus population scale.

Understanding the mechanisms that cause interactions between parasites is a cornerstone of coinfection research, in large part because uncovering these mechanisms should facilitate the development of effective disease intervention and control strategies. Immunological mechanisms are widely implicated as a driver of interactions between helminth parasites and many microbial pathogens (e.g. viruses, bacteria). For example, in mammals, helminth infections typically trigger a T-helper cell 2 (Th2)-type immune response, but the upregulation of this response can suppress T-helper cell 1 (Th1)-type immune responses directed against microbial pathogens (Mosmann and Sad, Reference Mosmann and Sad1996). The individual-level repercussions of this immune cross-regulation can include any or all the following: increased susceptibility to microbial infection, faster disease progression and more severe disease (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2011). Moreover, these individual-level effects may scale up to influence the spread of microbes at the population-level if their combinatorial effects are sufficient to alter microbial population growth rates (Fenton, Reference Fenton2008). Consequently, in populations where hosts are faced with concurrent helminth and microbe infection, treating individuals for their worms (e.g. via anthelmintic drug therapy) may be an effective strategy for mitigating the negative health impacts of certain microbial infections and reducing the population-level spread of these microbes (Hotez et al., Reference Hotez, Molyneux and Fenwick2006). However, how eliminating helminths will affect the population dynamics of a coinfecting microbe depends on the net effect of helminths on the different parameters relevant to microbial transmission.

The anthelmintic treatment study of wild buffalo in KNP (Box 11.1, Study 1) tracked the effect of experimental deworming on two key parameters that influence bTB dynamics in buffalo: (i) the probability that an individual becomes infected with the disease, and (ii) the disease-associated mortality rate. Results showed that although treatment boosted buffalo anti-bTB immunity, treated animals were equally likely as untreated controls to acquire bTB (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015). In contrast, treatment drastically reduced bTB-associated mortality, with treated animals almost nine times less likely to die of their bTB infections compared to controls (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015). The population-level consequences of these effects were estimated by considering the impact of treatment on the basic reproductive number (R0) of bTB, a metric that generally reflects how fast a pathogen can spread in a host population. Theoretically, anthelmintic treatment can either decrease or increase the R0 of bTB, but in this case, treatment was associated with a nearly eightfold increase in bTB’s R0 (Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015). As R0 is defined as the number of secondary cases produced by a single infected individual in a fully susceptible population, this means that, on average, an anthelmintic-treated buffalo infects eight conspecifics with bTB for every one infected by an untreated buffalo. Thus, although anthelmintic treatment has a positive outcome for individual health (i.e. bTB infected buffalo that receive treatment survive better), there appears to be a population-level cost of this strategy in terms of faster bTB spread (Figure 11.2a). This conflicting outcome likely arises because of the asymmetrical effects of worm treatment on bTB infection probability and mortality – as anthelmintic-treated, bTB-infected buffalo live longer (positive individual-level effect), they have more time to spread the disease to others (negative population-level effect). In the real world, therefore, broad-scale anthelmintic treatment and elimination or eradication of helminth parasitism may have unintended effects on the dynamics of certain microbial infections like bTB, despite vastly improving individual health outcomes.

In many cases, the within-host mechanisms underlying interactions between parasites are unknown, and a priori hypotheses about potential modes of intervention or control are lacking. Nevertheless, longitudinal studies can be used to understand the impacts of coinfection on both individuals and populations and extract insight about potential consequences of control strategies. Interactions between bTB and brucellosis in buffalo were studied in this way, with results pointing to another intriguing case of conflicting outcomes for individuals and populations. Taking advantage of the coupled longitudinal design of Study 1 (Box 11.1), the interactions between these two chronic bacterial infections on the risk of infection of buffalo to each pathogen and mortality were examined. While bTB infection increased brucellosis risk, there was no consistent effect of brucellosis on bTB infection risk, revealing an asymmetry in the effects of these pathogens on one another (Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). In terms of mortality risk, buffalo infected with both bTB and brucellosis experienced a more than eightfold increase in mortality compared to uninfected buffalo (Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). A mathematical model exploring how these changes in infection risk and mortality affected the R0 and prevalence of both pathogens showed that the presence of brucellosis reduced both the R0 of bTB and population-level prevalence, whereas the presence of bTB had no consistent effect on brucellosis (Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). Thus, even though bTB infection renders individual buffalo more susceptible to brucellosis, the presence of brucellosis moderates the prevalence of bTB at the population level (Figure 11.2b), highlighting yet another conflicting pattern across scales. In this case, the conflict arises because buffalo infected with bTB are more likely to acquire brucellosis and die (a negative individual-level outcome); however, this decreases the timeframe over which they can spread bTB to others, thereby reducing bTB prevalence at the population level (a positive population-level outcome). This result means that coinfection can help moderate the population-level spread of pathogens in certain circumstances, even if the individual-level outcomes of coinfection are undesirable.

These two case studies reveal an intriguing contrast between individual- and population-level consequences of infectious diseases in multi-parasite systems. Both examples suggest that the presence of one parasite or pathogen (helminths, brucellosis) can moderate the spread of another (bTB). In both contexts, cross-scale contrasts arise because the relative effects of helminths and brucellosis on individual host susceptibility to bTB are negligible compared to effects on mortality during coinfection (Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). If this imbalance between mortality and susceptibility/transmission effects is general, the implications for designing disease control and intervention strategies may be applicable to multiple host–pathogen systems. In wildlife, single-pathogen focused disease control and management programmes may inadvertently increase the prevalence of non-target infections or facilitate the invasion of novel pathogens. More generally, the presence of conflicting cross-scale outcomes raises intriguing new questions about parasite interactions. Among these questions, identifying the circumstances in which such conflicting outcomes are most likely, including the host and parasite attributes that contribute to this pattern, represent new frontiers in research on coinfection.

Tools for Studying Parasite Interactions

The growing understanding of the community ecology of buffalo parasites is in part attributable to the variety of empirical approaches (e.g. experiments, longitudinal tracking, case control designs) that have been used to draw inference as well as the parallel development of new computational and laboratory tools. Here, we highlight these tools as they apply to the studies described in Table 11.2.

Pairwise Interactions: Causes and Consequences

Expanding our knowledge of host- versus parasite-level outcomes of coinfection is one of the largest contributions the buffalo study system has made to parasite community ecology. The ability to track large numbers of individual buffalo make them well suited for revealing these processes. Specifically, following animals through time allowed for parameterization of dynamical compartmental models as the number of susceptible, infected, coinfected and recovered (in some cases) individuals could be accurately assessed in real-time, and fecundity and/or survival rates could be parameterized using time-to-event analyses (Beechler et al., Reference Beechler, Bengis and Swanepoel2015; Ezenwa and Jolles, Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015; Gorsich et al., Reference Gorsich, Etienne and Medlock2018). As dynamic compartmental models integrate multi-scale information to describe mechanistic processes, this methodological framework paints a clear and robust picture of multi-scale outcomes of parasite coinfection. Notably, in Ezenwa and Jolles (Reference Ezenwa and Jolles2015), the application of an anthelmintic drug typically used for cattle supported causal inference as well as guaranteed a relatively even sampling design of helminth infection status across animals.

A longitudinal study design and application of an anthelmintic drug also aided Budischak et al. (Reference Budischak, Hoberg and Abrams2016) in revealing patterns of parasite succession and in characterizing the outcome of a gain in infection on host health. Likewise, Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Jolles and Budischak2017) benefited by uncovering seasonally dependent effects of helminth infection on schistosome loss. In both of these studies, mixed effects models were able to parse out the effect of explicit covariates and animal-level random variation. As such, not only do these methods account for repeated measures and non-independence among samples, but they also identify the presence of latent animal traits not included in the model.

Community-Wide Analyses: Characterizing Complexity and Emergent Patterns

Advancing statistics and diagnostic approaches have been crucial in understanding communities beyond pairwise interactions. The ubiquity of concomitant infections in African buffalo has made it an ideal system for application of these techniques. For example, Glidden et al. (Reference Glidden, Coon and Beechler2021) used diagnostic tools initially developed for cattle to identify five respiratory pathogens infecting buffalo. Conditional Markov-random field models were then used to estimate the relative effect of the associations among all pathogens versus animal traits related to animal exposure and susceptibility on odds of infection. Notably, these methods can also be used to estimate how association strength among pathogens varies with host traits. In the study described here, the authors found that association strength differed with herd membership and animal lactation status (Glidden et al., Reference Glidden, Coon and Beechler2021). If examining interaction networks at multiple scales (individual, population, meta-population) joint-species distribution models can yield similar results (Fountain-Jones et al., Reference Fountain-Jones, Packer and Jacquot2019; Tikhonov et al., Reference Tikhonov, Abrego, Dunson and Ovaskainen2017).

Advanced time series analyses can also be used to detect causal associations (i.e. true interactions) between parasites in longitudinal observational data, without an experimental component, thereby making it possible to quantify multidimensional parasite communities. In Glidden (Reference Glidden2020), empirical dynamical modelling, a technique that uses time series to detect information transfer among variables (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Ye and Isbell2015), was paired with high throughput sequencing of an 18S genus-specific marker specific to describe non-linear and time-varying interactions among 12 subtypes of Theileria. This empirical dynamical modelling revealed that parasite interaction complexity decreases as animals age, with adult animals’ interaction networks containing only four facilitative interactions and no competitive interactions, whereas the Theileria community was connected via a dense web of both facilitative and competitive interactions in juvenile animals. General additive mixed models were then used to estimate the non-linear relationships among interaction strengths and host immune response, detecting a correlation between antibody concentration and mean interaction strength, suggesting that change in interaction networks may be related to shifts in immune dynamics. In this context, panel regression models are also a powerful tool as they use time series of multiple units (e.g. individuals) to detect causal relationships (Dudney et al., Reference Dudney, Willing and Das2021). If considering linear interactions, autoregressive models (Solvang and Subbey, Reference Solvang and Subbey2019) can similarly leverage time series data to identify causal interactions and characterize true interaction networks (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Ye and Isbell2015). Overall, increasingly accessible computational tools have expedited insight on the complex and interacting factors shaping high-dimensional pathogen community assemblages, with particularly novel tools allowing for causal inference from observational studies.

Trait-Based Analyses: Bridging Complexity to Prediction and General Rules

In recent years, the community ecology of free-living organisms has moved to expand characterization of biodiversity to include functional and trait-based descriptions. The sharing of pathogens of veterinary importance between livestock and buffalo has resulted in a fairly detailed knowledge of pathogen traits in African buffalo (e.g. infected tissue, transmission route), enabling classification of functional diversity. Unsupervised machine learning methods were used by Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019) to cluster pathogen communities by functional traits pre- and post-bTB infection. Classification by traits has also eased interpretation of grouped analyses such as in Combrink et al. (Reference Combrink, Glidden and Beechler2020), where time-to-event analyses were used to measure age of first infection across a range of parasite and pathogen taxa, and clear patterns emerged based upon pathogen transmission route and taxonomic group where animals were typically first infected by tick-borne protozoa and last infected with directly transmitted respiratory viruses and bacteria. Combrink et al.’s (Reference Combrink, Glidden and Beechler2020) investigation was made possible by the ability to track African buffalo from birth, allowing observation of natural parasite succession. The same study system (Study 2, Box 11.1) was used to identify patterns of succession of Theileria subtypes, while the application of non-linear regression and high-throughput sequencing allowed for a fine-scale identification of groups of Theileria subtypes with unique life-histories (colonization, relative abundance in adults; Figure 11.3).

Figure 11.3 The succession of Theileria subtypes in African buffalo demonstrates the unique applicability of combining longitudinal study designs with high-throughput sequencing to identify how pathogen communities change over time. By combining infection time series with information on host traits (Table 11.1) we can determine the assembly processes that shape African buffalo parasite communities. Here, the bTB axis represents within-host parasite relative abundance, the x-axis represents animal age. The regression line is the output of a general additive mixed model with a Dirichlet-multinomial distribution, allowing for modelling composition and clustered data.

Figure 11.4 Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) infection altered the parasite communities in buffalo. By assessing changes in parasite communities both taxonomically (by species and genus) as well as functionally (e.g. using parasite traits such as speed and site of replication), Beechler et al. (Reference Beechler, Boersma and Buss2019) showed that animals that acquired bTB had higher parasite richness after bTB (phase 2) than before (phase 1) both taxonomically (panel a) and functionally (panel b). Furthermore, the magnitude of this increase was greater than that experienced in non-bTB infected control animals. Additional analysis suggested that becoming infected with bTB shifted the parasite community to be dominated by parasites with three key traits (panel c): direct contact transmission, fast replication time and simple life cycle (rather than complex with intermediate hosts). These results suggest that bTB altered the parasite community in buffalo in particular ways, lending the ability to predict how the invasion of bTB in other host populations may affect parasite communities.

Advances Making Work More Feasible

Advances in genomic techniques have accelerated the ability to describe pathogen communities in African buffalo across a multitude of taxa from the genera to strain level (Glidden et al., Reference Glidden, Koehler and Hall2020) and explore relationships between pathogens and microbiomes (Couch et al., Reference Couch, Stagaman and Spaan2021; Sabey et al., Reference Sabey, Song and Jolles2021). Pairing genomic tools with non-invasive sampling, such as 18S sequencing of faecal samples to exhaustively characterize gastrointestinal parasite communities (e.g. Gogarten et al., Reference Gogarten, Calvignac-Spencer and Nunn2020), will continue to further our understanding of pathogen community assembly, the effect of coinfection on host fitness, and variation in pathogen communities across scales. Improvement in contact and GPS collars will support a better integration of pathogen exposure and host movement data into our understanding of pathogen community dynamics (Owen-Smith et al., Reference Owen-Smith, Hopcraft and Morrison2020). The development and reduction in cost of transcriptomics will further help to characterize complex immune responses to infection and coinfection (Sallé et al., Reference Sallé, Deiss and Marquis2020).

At the forefront of parasite community ecology, these genomic tools are starting to be used to uncover evolutionary drivers of observed coinfection patterns, helping to explain how trade-offs among evolved pathogen defences may drive responses to coinfection (Ezenwa et al., Reference Ezenwa, Budischak and Buss2021). These tools have the capacity to answer long-standing ecological questions, in a range of wildlife host–parasite systems.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Our past studies on parasite communities in African buffalo have contributed novel insights into the mechanisms by which parasites interact within their hosts, and how these interactions scale up to affect individual hosts, population-level disease dynamics, and parasite community structure. We have employed experimental and longitudinal approaches to infer causal links between infection patterns by different parasites, and have viewed coinfections both through the lens of pairwise species interactions, and at a broad community-wide scale. Along the way, we have developed and refined methods for diagnosing a range of infections in African buffalo and quantifying buffalo immune responses, other aspects of host physiology, and fitness. We have also taken advantage of new methods for analysing multivariate longitudinal data sets including interacting networks of dozens of parasite taxa. This work has set the stage for African buffalo to serve as a tractable model system for the study of disease processes in natural populations. However, our studies have raised more questions than they have answered. With new technologies and tools becoming available for data collection and analysis, there is broad scope for future disease ecological investigations in African buffalo. In particular, this model system is poised to: (i) help advance our understanding of ecological and evolutionary disease dynamics in the context of environmental change, and (ii) provide an empirical basis for evaluating whole-system impacts of disease interventions.

Current environmental changes are presenting wild animals with novel physiological challenges and assemblages of infectious organisms. In this context, mechanistic disease models are essential to providing robust predictions of disease dynamics and impacts of disease control interventions. Statistical extrapolation relies on previously observed variation to predict future conditions; however, when environments shift outside the boundaries of previously observed state space, non-linearities in host and pathogen functional responses may lead to novel infection patterns and outcomes (Kock et al., Reference Kock, Orynbayev and Robinson2018). Improvements in animal tracking technologies and metabolic loggers can provide continuous, fine-scale data on animal movement, interactions, activity levels and metabolic rate. Coupled with high-resolution environmental data streams, and non-invasive sampling for infectious diseases, these technological advances set the stage for studies connecting environmental variation with host physiological and behavioural responses (Williams et al., Reference Williams, Shipley and Rutz2021), contact patterns (Hamilton et al., Reference Hamilton, Jones and Cameron2020) and, ultimately, disease dynamics (Devan-Song, Reference Devan-Song2021). Building on this, assessing the metabolic and fitness costs of infections in natural populations becomes tractable, yielding insights on selection gradients imposed on hosts by parasites and pathogens. Complementary to this, quantitative molecular diagnostics provide detailed information on life-history variation among parasite strains and across different hosts. Faster, cheaper, deeper genetic sequencing techniques can elucidate host immunogenetic variation and parasite population genetics (Galen et al., Reference Galen, Borner and Williamson2020; Jax et al., Reference Jax, Müller and Börno2021). Taken together, these data streams promise to provide an unprecedented empirical foundation for coevolutionary studies in model natural host–pathogen systems, such as African buffalo and their parasite community.

Our previous work has uncovered the ubiquity of interactions among coinfecting parasites, and their importance in shaping disease dynamics and host fitness. However, host–microbe interactions include the full spectrum of mutualistic to parasitic interactions. Elucidating the involvement of the microbiome in host health and disease in natural populations confronted with the full gamut of environmental variability and infectious challenges is an exciting frontier in disease ecology (Leung et al., Reference Leung, Graham and Knowles2018; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Caraballo-Rodríguez and Allaband2018). Importantly, disease control interventions are likely to affect not only the specific target organisms, but also – directly or indirectly – the host’s extended infracommunity of parasites and microbiota. Previous work on successional processes in parasite communities of African buffalo has used novel analytical techniques for disentangling host and microbial factors that shape microbial infracommunity dynamics (Budischak et al., Reference Budischak, Hoberg and Abrams2016; Combrink et al., Reference Combrink, Glidden and Beechler2020; Glidden, Reference Glidden2020). However, the glimpse into parasite life-history variation and succession that we have provided is far from comprehensive. The intersection of quantitative molecular diagnostics (e.g. Glidden et al., Reference Glidden, Koehler and Hall2020; Sisson et al., Reference Sisson, Hufschmid and Jolles2017) and analytical techniques for resolving community dynamics in complex, interacting species networks (e.g. Sugihara et al., Reference Sugihara, May and Ye2012) as applied in Glidden (Reference Glidden2020) allows causal inferences to be drawn from observational parasite community data sets. This places a much broader understanding of parasite community responses to perturbations – such as disease control interventions, pathogen invasions or environmental change – within reach.

Overall, the foundational work on parasite interactions and community dynamics in African buffalo we describe in this chapter helps sets the stage for future studies in this model system addressing what is one of the central challenges in disease ecology: how to predict and mitigate infectious disease threats during a time of unprecedented, rapid environmental change.

Footnotes

a Cooperia fulleborni, Haemonchus sp., Parabronema sp., Trichostrongylus sp., Africanastrongylus giganticus, Africanastrongylus buceros.

b Bovine adenovirus-3 (AD-3), bovine herpes virus (BHV), bovine parainfluenza-3 (Pi-3), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), Mycoplasma bovis (MB), Mannheimia haemolytica (MH).

c T. parva, T. sp (buffalo), T. sp (bougasvlei), T. velifera, T. velifera B, T. mutans-like 1, T. mutans-like 2, T. mutans-like 3, T. mutans, T. mutans MSD.

d Anaplasma centrale, A. marginale, A. sp. Omatjenne, A. phagocytophilum, Babesia sp., Ehrlichia ruminantum, Theileria parva, T. mutans, T. sp (buffalo), T. sp (sable), T. velifera.

References

Beechler, B. (2013). Rift Valley fever in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): basic epidemiology and the role of bovine tuberculosis coinfection. PhD thesis, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Beechler, B.R., Boersma, K.S., Buss, P.E., et al. (2019). Bovine tuberculosis disturbs parasite functional trait composition in African buffalo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116(29): 14645–14650.Google ScholarPubMed
Beechler, B.R., Broughton, H., Bell, A., et al. (2012). Innate immunity in free-ranging African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): associations with parasite infection and white blood cell counts. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 85(3): 255264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beechler, B.R., Jolles, A.E., Budischak, S.A., et al. (2017). Host immunity, nutrition and coinfection alter longitudinal infection patterns of schistosomes in a free ranging African buffalo population. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 11(12): e0006122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beechler, B.R., Jolles, A.E. and Ezenwa, V.O. (2009). Evaluation of hematologic values in free-ranging African buffalo (Syncerus caffer). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45(1): 5766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beechler, B.R., Manore, C.A., Reininghaus, B., et al. (2015). Enemies and turncoats: bovine tuberculosis exposes pathogenic potential of Rift Valley fever virus in a common host, African buffalo (Syncerus caffer). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 282(1805): 20142942.Google Scholar
Budischak, S.A., Hoberg, E.P., Abrams, A., et al. (2016). Experimental insight into the process of parasite community assembly. The Journal of Animal Ecology 85(5): 12221233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budischak, S.A., O’Neal, D., Jolles, A.E. and Ezenwa, V.O. (2018a). Differential host responses to parasitism shape divergent fitness costs of infection. Functional Ecology 32(2): 324333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budischak, S.A., Wiria, A.E., Hamid, F., et al. (2018b). Competing for blood: the ecology of parasite resource competition in human malaria–helminth co-infections. Ecology Letters 21(4): 536545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, A.O. and Holmes, J.C. (1986). Intestinal helminths of lesser scaup ducks: an interactive community. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64(1): 142152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T., Ye, H., Isbell, F., et al. (2015). Spatial convergent cross mapping to detect causal relationships from short time series. Ecology 96(5): 11741181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clerc, M., Fenton, A., Babayan, S.A. and Pedersen, A.B. (2019). Parasitic nematodes simultaneously suppress and benefit from coccidian coinfection in their natural mouse host. Parasitology 146(8): 10961106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Combrink, L., Glidden, C.K., Beechler, B.R., et al. (2020). Age of first infection across a range of parasite taxa in a wild mammalian population. Biology Letters 16(2): 20190811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couch, C.E., Stagaman, K., Spaan, R.S., et al. (2021). Diet and gut microbiome enterotype are associated at the population level in African buffalo. Nature Communications 12(1): 2267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couch, C., Movius, M., Jolles, A.E., et al. (2017). Serum biochemistry panels in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): defining references intervals and assessing variability across season, age and sex. PLoS One 12(5): e0176830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, F.E. (2001). Concomitant infections, parasites and immune responses. Parasitology 122(Suppl): S23–S38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devan-Song, A. (2021). Contact Patterns in African Buffalo. PhD, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Dudney, J., Willing, C.E., Das, A.J., et al. (2021). Nonlinear shifts in infectious rust disease due to climate change. Nature Communications 12: 5102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutt, A., Anthony, R., Andrivon, D., et al. (2021). Competition and facilitation among fungal plant parasites affect their life‐history traits. Oikos 130(4): 652667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezenwa, V.O. (2016). Helminth–microparasite co-infection in wildlife: lessons from ruminants, rodents and rabbits. Parasite Immunology 38(9): 527534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezenwa, V.O., Budischak, S.A., Buss, P. et al. (2021). Natural resistance to worms exacerbates bovine tuberculosis severity independently of worm coinfection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118(3): e2015080118.Google ScholarPubMed
Ezenwa, V.O., Etienne, R.S., Luikart, G., Beja-Pereira, A. and Jolles, A.E. (2010). Hidden consequences of living in a wormy world: nematode‐induced immune suppression facilitates tuberculosis invasion in African buffalo. The American Naturalist 176(5): 613624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezenwa, V.O. and Jolles, A.E. (2011). From host immunity to pathogen invasion: the effects of helminth coinfection on the dynamics of microparasites. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51(4): 540551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezenwa, V.O. and Jolles, A.E. (2015). Epidemiology. Opposite effects of anthelmintic treatment on microbial infection at individual versus population scales. Science 347(6218): 175177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezenwa, V.O., Jolles, A.E., Beechler, B.R., Budischak, S.A. and Gorsich, E.E. (2019). The causes and consequences of parasite interactions: African buffalo as a case study. In: Wilson, K., Fenton, A. and Tompkins, D. (Eds.), Wildlife Disease Ecology: Linking Theory to Data and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezenwa, V.O., Jolles, A.E. and O’Brien, M.P. (2009). A reliable body condition scoring technique for estimating condition in African buffalo. African Journal of Ecology 47(4): 476481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, A. (2008). Worms and germs: the population dynamic consequences of microparasite–macroparasite co-infection. Parasitology 135(13): 15451560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fountain-Jones, N.M., Packer, C., Jacquot, M., et al. (2019). Endemic infection can shape exposure to novel pathogens: pathogen co-occurrence networks in the Serengeti lions. Ecology Letters 22(6): 904913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galen, S.C., Borner, J., Williamson, J.L., et al. (2020). Metatranscriptomics yields new genomic resources and sensitive detection of infections for diverse blood parasites. Molecular Ecology Resources 20(1): 1428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garabed, R.B., Jolles, A., Garira, H., et al. (2020). Multi-scale dynamics of infectious diseases. Interface Focus 10(1): 20190118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glidden, C.K. (2020). Individual Host to Population Scale Dynamics of Parasite Assemblages in African Buffalo of Kruger National Park, South Africa. PhD thesis, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Glidden, C.K., Beechler, B., Buss, P.E., et al. (2018). Detection of pathogen exposure in African buffalo using non-specific markers of inflammation. Frontiers in Immunology 8: 1944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glidden, C.K., Coon, C.A.C., Beechler, B.R., et al. (2021). Co-infection best predicts respiratory viral infection in a wild host. The Journal of Animal Ecology 90(3): 602614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glidden, C.K., Koehler, A.V., Hall, R.S., et al. (2020). Elucidating cryptic dynamics of Theileria communities in African buffalo using a high-throughput sequencing informatics approach. Ecology and Evolution 10(1): 7080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gogarten, J.F., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Nunn, C.L., et al. (2020). Metabarcoding of eukaryotic parasite communities describes diverse parasite assemblages spanning the primate phylogeny. Molecular Ecology Resources 20(1): 204215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorsich, E.E., Etienne, R.S., Medlock, J., et al. (2018). Opposite outcomes of coinfection at individual and population scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(29): 75457550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, A.L. (2008). Ecological rules governing helminth–microparasite coinfection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(2): 566570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, D.G., Jones, M.E., Cameron, E.Z., et al. (2020). Infectious disease and sickness behaviour: tumour progression affects interaction patterns and social network structure in wild Tasmanian devils. Proceedings of The Royal Society Biological Sciences 287(1940): 20202454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrichs, B., Oosthuizen, M.C., Troskie, M., et al. (2016). Within guild co-infections influence parasite community membership: a longitudinal study in African Buffalo. The Journal of Animal Ecology 85(4): 10251034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoarau, A.O.G., Mavingui, P. and Lebarbenchon, C. (2020). Coinfections in wildlife: focus on a neglected aspect of infectious disease epidemiology. PLoS Pathogens 16(9): e1008790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotez, P.J., Molyneux, D.H., Fenwick, A., et al. (2006). Incorporating a rapid-impact package for neglected tropical diseases with programs for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. PLoS Medicine 3(5): e102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jax, E., Müller, I., Börno, S., et al. (2021). Health monitoring in birds using bio-loggers and whole blood transcriptomics. Scientific Reports 11(1): 10815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolles, A.E., Ezenwa, V.O., Etienne, R.S., et al. (2008). Interactions between macroparasites and microparasites drive infection patterns in free‐ranging African buffalo. Ecology 89(8): 22392250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolles, A., Gorsich, E., Gubbins, S., et al. (2021). Endemic persistence of a highly contagious pathogen: foot-and-mouth disease in its wildlife host. Science 374(6563): 104109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kock, R.A., Orynbayev, M., Robinson, S., et al. (2018). Saigas on the brink: multidisciplinary analysis of the factors influencing mass mortality events. Science Advances 4(1): eaao2314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lello, J., Boag, B., Fenton, A., et al. (2004). Competition and mutualism among the gut helminths of a mammalian host. Nature 428(6985): 840844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, J.M., Graham, A.L. and Knowles, S.C.L. (2018). Parasite–microbiota interactions with the vertebrate gut: synthesis through an ecological lens. Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mabbott, N.A. (2018). The influence of parasite infections on host immunity to co-infection with other pathogens. Frontiers in Immunology 9: 2579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, C.A., Longo, A.V., Lips, K.R. and Zamudio, K.R. (2020). Incapacitating effects of fungal coinfection in a novel pathogen system. Molecular Ecology 29(17): 31733186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, B.J., Enquist, B.J., Weiher, E. and Westoby, M. (2006). Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(4): 178185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosmann, T.R. and Sad, S. (1996). The expanding universe of T-cell subsets: Th1, Th2 and more. Immunology Today 17(3): 138146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen-Smith, N., Hopcraft, G., Morrison, T., et al. (2020). Movement ecology of large herbivores in African savannas: current knowledge and gaps. Mammal Review 50(3): 252266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, A.B. and Fenton, A. (2007). Emphasizing the ecology in parasite community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(3): 133139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raberg, L., de Roode, J.C., Bell, A.S., et al. (2006). The role of immune-mediated apparent competition in genetically diverse malaria infections. The American Naturalist 168(1): 4153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabey, K.A., Song, S.J., Jolles, A., et al. (2021). Coinfection and infection duration shape how pathogens affect the African buffalo gut microbiota. The ISME Journal 15(5): 13591371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salgame, P., Yap, G.S. and Gause, H.C. (2013). Effect of helminth-induced immunity on infections with microbial pathogens. Nature Immunology 14(11): 11181126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallé, G., Deiss, V., Marquis, C., et al. (2020). Strongyle-resistant sheep express their potential across environments and leave limited scope for parasite plasticity. bioRxiv 161729. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.19.161729Google Scholar
Sisson, D., Hufschmid, J., Jolles, A., et al. (2017). Molecular characterisation of Anaplasma species from African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases 8(3): 400406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solvang, H.K. and Subbey, S. (2019). Correction: An improved methodology for quantifying causality in complex ecological systems. PLoS One 14(6): e0217195.Google ScholarPubMed
Spaan, J.M., Pitts, N., Buss, P., et al. (2017). Experimental validation of fecal glucocorticoid metabolites as a non-invasive measure of stress response in African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) reveals resilience to immobilization and captivity. Journal of Mammalogy 98(5): 12881300.Google Scholar
Spaan, R.S., Epps, C.H., Ezenwa, V.O. and Jolles, A.E. (2019). Why did the buffalo cross the park? Resource shortages, but not infections, drive dispersal in female African buffalo (Syncerus caffer). Ecology and Evolution 9(10): 56515663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugihara, G., May, R., Ye, H., et al. (2012). Detecting causality in complex ecosystems. Science 338(6106): 496500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Telfer, S., Lambin, X., Birtles, R., et al. (2010). Species interactions in a parasite community drive infection risk in a wildlife population. Science 330(6001): 243246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tikhonov, G., Abrego, N., Dunson, D. and Ovaskainen, O. (2017). Using joint species distribution models for evaluating how species‐to‐species associations depend on the environmental context. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8(4): 443452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C.L., Caraballo-Rodríguez, A.M., Allaband, C., et al. (2018). Wildlife–microbiome interactions and disease: exploring opportunities for disease mitigation across ecological scales. Drug Discovery Today. Disease Models 28: 105115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H.J., Shipley, J.R., Rutz, C., et al. (2021). Future trends in measuring physiology in free-living animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 376(1831): 20200230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, K., Fenton, A. and Tompkins, D. (2019). Wildlife Disease Ecology: Linking Theory to Data and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zélé, F., Magalhães, S., Kéfi, S. and Duncan, A.B. (2018). Ecology and evolution of facilitation among symbionts. Nature Communications 9(1): 4869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 11.1(a) African buffalo fitted with a VHF collar.

Figure 1

Figure 11.1(b) Double fence surrounding the 900 ha semi-natural enclosure containing the buffalo herd of Study 2.

Figure 2

Table 11.1 Measures of health and immunity used in African buffalo.

Figure 3

Table 11.2 Summary of research on parasite interactions in African buffalo. The studies span a range of designs, including experimental (E), longitudinal (L) and case control (CC) studies. The design column indicates the study design type and whether the data were derived from Study 1 or 2 as described in Box 11.1. The scale column indicates whether the study focused on two parasites (pairwise), a group of parasites (e.g. helminths or Theileria), or all of the parasites that were screened (WC, for whole community). It also describes whether the interaction was between microparasites (micro–micro), macroparasites (macro–macro) or both (macro–micro). The interaction type and effects columns define whether the parasites positively (facilitation) or negatively (competition) influenced each other during a subsequent observation or across multiple observations (succession).

Figure 4

Figure 11.2(a) The estimated reproductive number (R0) of bTB in buffalo subpopulations that did (treated) versus did not (control) receive anthelmintic drug treatment. R0 was approximately eight times higher for treated individuals (2 vs. 15.5), with upper and lower estimates of 3.4 and 69.8, respectively.

Figure 5

Figure 11.2(b) The estimated prevalence of bTB in buffalo populations with single bTB (left panel, line with circle) or concurrent bTB and brucellosis (left panel, line with triangle) infections. bTB prevalence declined in the presence of brucellosis, but there was no reciprocal effect of bTB on Brucella prevalence (right panel, line with circle vs. line with triangle).

Figure 6

Figure 11.3 The succession of Theileria subtypes in African buffalo demonstrates the unique applicability of combining longitudinal study designs with high-throughput sequencing to identify how pathogen communities change over time. By combining infection time series with information on host traits (Table 11.1) we can determine the assembly processes that shape African buffalo parasite communities. Here, the bTB axis represents within-host parasite relative abundance, the x-axis represents animal age. The regression line is the output of a general additive mixed model with a Dirichlet-multinomial distribution, allowing for modelling composition and clustered data.

Figure 7

Figure 11.4 Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) infection altered the parasite communities in buffalo. By assessing changes in parasite communities both taxonomically (by species and genus) as well as functionally (e.g. using parasite traits such as speed and site of replication), Beechler et al. (2019) showed that animals that acquired bTB had higher parasite richness after bTB (phase 2) than before (phase 1) both taxonomically (panel a) and functionally (panel b). Furthermore, the magnitude of this increase was greater than that experienced in non-bTB infected control animals. Additional analysis suggested that becoming infected with bTB shifted the parasite community to be dominated by parasites with three key traits (panel c): direct contact transmission, fast replication time and simple life cycle (rather than complex with intermediate hosts). These results suggest that bTB altered the parasite community in buffalo in particular ways, lending the ability to predict how the invasion of bTB in other host populations may affect parasite communities.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×