Letter | Published:

Host–parasite ‘Red Queen’ dynamics archived in pond sediment

Nature volume 450, pages 870873 (06 December 2007) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Antagonistic interactions between hosts and parasites are a key structuring force in natural populations, driving coevolution1,2. However, direct empirical evidence of long-term host–parasite coevolution, in particular ‘Red Queen’ dynamics—in which antagonistic biotic interactions such as host–parasite interactions can lead to reciprocal evolutionary dynamics—is rare3,4,5, and current data, although consistent with theories of antagonistic coevolution, do not reveal the temporal dynamics of the process6. Dormant stages of both the water flea Daphnia and its microparasites are conserved in lake sediments, providing an archive of past gene pools. Here we use this fact to reconstruct rapid coevolutionary dynamics in a natural setting and show that the parasite rapidly adapts to its host over a period of only a few years. A coevolutionary model based on negative frequency-dependent selection, and designed to mimic essential aspects of our host–parasite system, corroborated these experimental results. In line with the idea of continuing host–parasite coevolution, temporal variation in parasite infectivity changed little over time. In contrast, from the moment the parasite was first found in the sediments, we observed a steady increase in virulence over time, associated with higher fitness of the parasite.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Ecology and evolution of host–pathogen interactions in nature. Am. Nat. 164, S1–S5 (2004)

  2. 2.

    & Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417, 735–738 (2002)

  3. 3.

    , , , & Biological and biomedical implications of the co-evolution of pathogens and their hosts. Nature Genet. 32, 569–577 (2002)

  4. 4.

    & Biological Control of Vertebrate Pests (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 1999)

  5. 5.

    & Parasite adaptation to locally common genotypes. Nature 405, 679–681 (2000)

  6. 6.

    The evolutionary significance of parasitism: do parasite-driven genetic dynamics occur ex silico? J. Evol. Biol. 15, 1–9 (2002)

  7. 7.

    et al. Rapid, local adaptation of zooplankton behavior to changes in predation pressure in the absence of natural genetic changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6256–6260 (2001)

  8. 8.

    & Experimental paleoecology (resurrection ecology): Chasing Van Valen’s Red Queen hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1300–1316 (2004)

  9. 9.

    et al. Rapid evolution revealed by dormant eggs. Nature 401, 446 (1999)

  10. 10.

    & Associations between parasitism and host genotype in natural populations of Daphnia (Crustacea: Cladocera). J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 134–149 (1999)

  11. 11.

    , & Genetic variation in a host–parasite association. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 55, 1146–1152 (2001)

  12. 12.

    , , & Evidence for strong host clone–parasite species interactions in the Daphnia microparasite system. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 57, 784–792 (2003)

  13. 13.

    , & The effect of a pathogen epidemic on the genetic structure and reproductive strategy of the crustacean Daphnia magna. Ecol. Lett. 7, 848–858 (2004)

  14. 14.

    Virulence and local adaptation of a horizontally transmitted parasite. Science 265, 1084–1086 (1994)

  15. 15.

    & Parasite-mediated selection in experimental Daphnia magna populations. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 57, 249–260 (2003)

  16. 16.

    & Parasite-mediated selection in experimental metapopulations of Daphnia magna. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2149–2155 (2004)

  17. 17.

    & Rapid evolution and ecological host–parasite dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 10, 44–53 (2007)

  18. 18.

    , , & Haunted by the past: evidence for dormant stage banks and epibionts of Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1355–1364 (2004)

  19. 19.

    Sex versus non-sex parasite. Oikos 35, 282–290 (1980)

  20. 20.

    , & A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J. Evol. Biol. 12, 1003–1012 (1999)

  21. 21.

    Experimental evolution of parasites. Science 282, 1432–1435 (1998)

  22. 22.

    , & Parasite–host specificity: experimental studies on the basis of adaptation. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 60, 31–38 (2006)

  23. 23.

    & Parasite-driven genetic change in a natural population of Daphnia. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 61, 796–803 (2007)

  24. 24.

    & The cause of parasitic infection in natural populations of Daphnia (Crustacea: Cladocera): the role of host genetics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 2037–2042 (2000)

  25. 25.

    & Temporal patterns of genetic variation for resistance and infectivity in a Daphnia–microparasite system. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 55, 1146–1152 (2001)

  26. 26.

    , & In deep trouble: habitat selection constrained by multiple enemies in zooplankton. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5481–5485 (2002)

  27. 27.

    , , & The evolution of virulence when parasites cause host castration and gigantism. Am. Nat. 164S, S19–S32 (2004)

  28. 28.

    & Effects of carboxy-terminal modifications and pH on binding of a Bacillus subtilis small acid soluble spore protein to DNA. J. Bacteriol. 185, 6095–6103 (2003)

  29. 29.

    , & Ecological genetic variation in seed banks. III. Phenotypic and genetic differences between young and old seed populations of Carex bigelowii. J. Ecol. 79, 645–662 (1991)

  30. 30.

    , , , & Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301, 1343 (2003)

  31. 31.

    et al. Rapid, local adaptation of zooplankton behavior to changes in predation pressure in the absence of natural genetic changes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 6256–6260 (2001)

  32. 32.

    , , & Haunted by the past: evidence for dormant stage banks and epibionts of Daphnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1355–1364 (2004)

  33. 33.

    R Development Core Team. The R project for statistical computing 〈〉 (2005)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. L. Burks, B. Jansen, T. Huyse, T. J. Little, J. Mergeay, D. J. Mikolajewski, R. Ortells, F. Van de Meutter, J. Vanoverbeke and G. Verbeke for discussion and advice; J. Vandekerkhove, D. Verreydt, H. Michels and A. Wollebrants for technical help; and S. Sweizig for linguistic corrections. We acknowledge constructive comments by A. Read and Y. Michalakis. This research was supported by grants from the KULeuven Research Fund to E.D., the Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – Vlaanderen (F.W.O) to E.D. and J.A.M.R., the KULeuven Research Fund to L.D.M., INRA and the Swiss Nationalfonds to S.G., and the Swiss Nationalfonds to D.E.

Author information

Author notes

    • Dieter Ebert
    •  & Luc De Meester

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,

    • Ellen Decaestecker
    • , Joost A. M. Raeymaekers
    • , Robby Stoks
    • , Liesbeth Van Kerckhoven
    •  & Luc De Meester
  2. Laboratory for Animal Biodiversity and Systematics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Charles de Bériotstraat 32, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

    • Joost A. M. Raeymaekers
  3. Interdisciplinary Research Center (IRC), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Campus Kortrijk, Etienne Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium

    • Ellen Decaestecker
  4. Universität Basel, Zoologisches Institut, Evolutionsbiologie, Vesalgasse 1, 4053 Basel, Switzerland

    • Sabrina Gaba
    •  & Dieter Ebert
  5. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UR1282, Infectiologie Animale et Santé Publique, Nouzilly, F-37380, France

    • Sabrina Gaba

Authors

  1. Search for Ellen Decaestecker in:

  2. Search for Sabrina Gaba in:

  3. Search for Joost A. M. Raeymaekers in:

  4. Search for Robby Stoks in:

  5. Search for Liesbeth Van Kerckhoven in:

  6. Search for Dieter Ebert in:

  7. Search for Luc De Meester in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Decaestecker.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    The Supplementary Information contains five parts: SI1 shows a figure on the dormant egg profile in the sediment cores; SI2 explains the clone depth x time shift interaction in the logistic regression of Table 1; SI3 gives information on the genetic continuity of the host population based on neutral markers; SI4 describes the coevolutionary model that we designed to capture our experimental study and study organism with four additional figures. SI5 gives additional references referred to in the Supplementary Information.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06291

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.