Abstract
Understanding how hosts minimize the cost of emerging infections has fundamental implications for epidemiological dynamics and the evolution of pathogen virulence. Despite this, few experimental studies in natural populations have tested whether, in response to disease emergence, hosts evolve resistance, which reduces pathogen load through immune activation, or tolerance, which limits somatic damages without decreasing pathogen load. Further, none has done so accounting for significant natural variation in pathogen virulence, despite known effects on host responses to infection. Here, we investigate whether eastern North American house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) have evolved resistance and/or tolerance to their emerging bacterial pathogen, Mycoplasma gallisepticum. To do so, we inoculated finches from disease‐exposed and disease‐unexposed populations with 55 distinct isolates of varying virulence. First, although peak pathogen loads, which occurred approximately eight days postinoculation, did not differ between experimentally inoculated finches from disease‐exposed versus unexposed population, pathogen loads subsequently decreased faster and to a greater extent in finches from exposed populations. These results suggest that finches from exposed populations are able to clear the infection through adaptive immune processes. Second, however, finches from exposed populations also displayed lower symptom severity for a given pathogen load, suggesting that a damage‐limitation mechanism, or tolerance, has accompanied the evolution of immune clearance. Our results highlight that resistance and tolerance should be seen as complementary, not alternative, defense strategies: the evolution of resistance benefits from the concomitant evolution of tolerance mechanisms that protect against the damage of immune activation, whereas the evolution of tolerance without resistance will risk runaway selection on pathogen virulence.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom
2 Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom; School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; Current address: Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Research on Cancer, UMR CNRS/IRD/UM 5290 MIVEGEC, Montpellier, France
3 Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
4 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona





