Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
    • Philosophical Transactions B
    • Proceedings B
    • Biology Letters
    • Open Biology
    • Philosophical Transactions A
    • Proceedings A
    • Royal Society Open Science
    • Interface
    • Interface Focus
    • Notes and Records
    • Biographical Memoirs

Advanced

  • Home
  • Content
    • Latest issue
    • All content
    • Subject collections
    • Special features
    • Videos
  • Information for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Readers
    • Institutions
  • About us
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Author benefits
    • Policies
    • Citation metrics
    • Publication times
    • Open access
  • Sign up
    • Subscribe
    • eTOC alerts
    • Keyword alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • Request a free trial
  • Submit
You have accessRestricted access

Host–parasite local adaptation after experimental coevolution of Caenorhabditis elegans and its microparasite Bacillus thuringiensis

Rebecca D. Schulte, Carsten Makus, Barbara Hasert, Nico K. Michiels, Hinrich Schulenburg
Published 9 February 2011.DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0019
Rebecca D. Schulte
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carsten Makus
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barbara Hasert
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nico K. Michiels
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hinrich Schulenburg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Coevolving hosts and parasites can adapt to their local antagonist. In studies on natural populations, the observation of local adaptation patterns is thus often taken as indirect evidence for coevolution. Based on this approach, coevolution was previously inferred from an overall pattern of either parasite or host local adaptation. Many studies, however, failed to detect such a pattern. One explanation is that the studied system was not subject to coevolution. Alternatively, coevolution occurred, but remained undetected because it took different routes in different populations. In some populations, it is the host that is locally adapted, whereas in others it is the parasite, leading to the absence of an overall local adaptation pattern. Here, we test for overall as well as population-specific patterns of local adaptation using experimentally coevolved populations of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and its bacterial microparasite Bacillus thuringiensis. Furthermore, we assessed the importance of random interaction effects using control populations that evolved in the absence of the respective antagonist. Our results demonstrate that experimental coevolution produces distinct local adaptation patterns in different replicate populations, including host, parasite or absence of local adaptation. Our study thus provides experimental evidence of the predictions of the geographical mosaic theory of coevolution, i.e. that the interaction between parasite and host varies across populations.

1. Introduction

Host–parasite coevolution is one of the most powerful selective forces in evolution [1]. In a spatially structured environment, it can result in local adaptation of the parasite to the host and vice versa. Local adaptation has been studied extensively in cross-infection experiments by comparing sympatric (from the same location) and allopatric (from different locations) host–parasite combinations. Local adaptation of the parasite is inferred from such comparisons if parasites show higher fitness in local hosts than in hosts from a different location. An analogous observation is required for host local adaptation (also called local maladaptation of the parasite; for simplicity, we will only use the term host local adaptation throughout our manuscript). If local adaptation is found for only one of the antagonists, then it is believed to be ahead in the ‘arms race’ [2,3].

Previous studies revealed all possible scenarios: local adaptation of the parasite, the host, and no local adaptation [4–8]. However, the latter group might encompass local adaptation for the parasite in some populations and for the host in other populations, consequently yielding absence of an overall effect. The correct interpretation of such inferences is thus not straightforward and it additionally requires consideration of the following factors. First, the relative evolutionary potential of each antagonist (i.e. their ability to generate new genetic variants) influences the speed of adaptation and determines which antagonist will be locally adapted [9–12]. The evolutionary potential may also be affected by the antagonists' migration behaviour [3,13–15]. Second, coevolutionary responses occur with a time lag, and therefore, either of the coevolving antagonists will sometimes appear non- or even maladapted [4,16,17]. Third, the specific trait used to study local adaptation (e.g. host infection load) may not be under selection and therefore it may be non-informative [18–20]. Fourth, the interaction between parasite and host may be influenced by the ecological environment and therefore differ between regions (geographical mosaic of coevolution, [21]). This selection mosaic leads to differentiation between populations, possibly resulting in contrasting patterns in different populations at a particular time point (i.e. parasite, host or no local adaptation). Thus, the geographical mosaic may obscure the presence of local adaptation if it is deduced from an overall effect in a cross-infection experiment that includes several populations. Furthermore, environmental factors may dramatically influence the interaction between parasite and host [15,22–26], and thus the experimental design can be crucial for the ability to detect local adaptation [27,28].

Here, we specifically tested for local adaptation as an outcome of coevolution. We compared experimentally evolved populations of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and its bacterial micro-parasite Bacillus thuringiensis. These two species most probably coexist and coevolve in nature [29,30], and they have the potential to coevolve in the laboratory [31]. We studied local adaptation using material from a laboratory-based evolution experiment [31] including two treatments. In one case, we combined host and parasite populations, which were forced to co-adapt to each other for approximately 48 host generations (the coevolution matrix). In the other case, we examined combinations of control parasite and control host populations, which both evolved in the absence of the respective antagonist (the control matrix). Each matrix was examined in a full-factorial cross-infection experiment (figure 1), comparable to former studies on natural or experimentally evolved populations. This experimental set-up enabled us to test for local adaptation in the coevolution matrix by comparing sympatric and allopatric combinations. Furthermore, the control matrix was used to generate a biological null distribution, which exclusively consisted of host–parasite combinations that are known to not have coevolved with each other in the past. This null distribution gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether local adaptation in the coevolution matrix differs from random associations and whether local adaptation might take different directions (i.e. parasite or host local adaptation) in the various replicate populations.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Experimental set-up. Shaded squares indicate sympatric combinations. In the control matrix, 50 different sympatric combinations were simulated by calculating a specificity index for each combination. Comparisons within columns indicate pathogenicity data, and comparisons within rows resistance data following the local versus foreign criterion.

2. Material and methods

(a) Study system and coevolution

The bacterial micro-parasite B. thuringiensis causes persistent gut infections in the nematode C. elegans that potentially lead to death [29,32,33]. Both antagonists have revealed potential for specific interactions: B. thuringiensis strains show high specificity towards nematodes, including C. elegans [29–31,34], and C. elegans expresses specific immune reactions towards different pathogens (e.g. [35–37]).

The exact protocol of experimental evolution is described elsewhere [31]. Importantly, we used mixtures of three different B. thuringiensis strains (NRRL B-18246, NRRL B-18247, NRRL B-18679; provided by the Agricultural Research Service Patent Culture Collection (US Department of Agriculture, Peoria, IL, USA)) and populations derived from three different natural C. elegans isolates (MY8, MY15, MY18 [37]). The parasite strains differ in genotype and in crystal toxin production [31,38–40]. Crystal toxins are most probably of prime importance for the interaction with C. elegans [41]. The host strains are genetically diverse, encompassing a large part of the genetic diversity present worldwide [42] and differ in the interaction with various pathogens, including B. thuringiensis [31,43,44]. The three C. elegans isolates were reciprocally crossed over several generations before beginning the evolution experiment in order to obtain a genetically diverse starting population.

In the coevolution treatment (n = 20 replicate populations), we simultaneously selected for nematode resistance and parasite infectivity. The control parasites (n = 10 replicate populations) could adapt to the general environmental conditions of the experiment without presence of hosts. In the host control (n = 20 replicate populations), worms could similarly adapt to the conditions of the experiment. During selection, we regularly added the original genotypes at low concentration (5% every fourth worm generation) to the evolving host and parasite populations, in order to simulate immigration and thus to prevent random loss of genetic diversity. After selecting for 48 host generations, the evolved B. thuringiensis and C. elegans were frozen in glycerol for later analysis. In particular, as for C. elegans mainly young larvae survive the freezing procedure [45], we first isolated for each replicate population 20 adult hermaphrodites, which were then allowed to reproduce either by self-fertilization or by outcrossing if they mated before isolation. The resulting genetically variable offspring were frozen as separate family lines, i.e. 20 family lines per replicate population, to prevent accidental loss of genotypes. For the local adaptation experiment (see below), the frozen family lines were thawed and for each replicate population, eight or more of these lines were mixed in equal proportions to simulate the genotype composition of each replicate population after experimental evolution and before freezing. As B. thuringiensis spores survive freezing [46], we froze complete, spore-enriched populations and thawed these for the local adaptation experiment.

(b) Local adaptation experiment

For the local adaptation experiment, we tested in total 10 × 10 combinations of B. thuringiensis and C. elegans replicate populations in the coevolution matrix and 10 × 5 respective combinations in the control matrix (figure 1), which were randomly chosen from all replicates of experimental evolution. Within both matrices, every combination was tested once. The experimental set-up was similar to the conditions during selection and as described for the final experiment in Schulte et al. [31]. In short, experimental temperature was 18°C. For each combination, 20 hermaphroditic worms of the last larval stage (L4) were transferred onto peptone-free nematode growth medium inoculated with the respective bacteria inside a ‘wormball’ [44]. We used a total of 3.5 × 107 B. thuringiensis particles and ad libitum Escherichia coli OP50 as a food source. After 3 days, the survival rate of worms was measured (surviving worms/(surviving + dead worms)) in order to characterize host resistance and parasite pathogenicity. This trait was directly selected during experimental evolution, i.e. surviving worms and killing parasites were transferred to the next round of selection, and it was previously shown to provide an informative measure for both resistance and pathogenicity [31]. Furthermore, we used log-transformed (log10(x + 1)) worm offspring number of these 20 worms after 3 days (i.e. host reproduction) as an additional measure for both resistance and pathogenicity. To enhance clarity when focusing on parasite pathogenicity, survival rate was translated into killing rate (−1*survival rate) and host reproduction into reduction in host reproduction (−1*host reproduction).

(c) Data analysis

Local adaptation was assessed from either the parasite or the host perspective. We focus on the ‘local versus foreign’ criterion following Kawecki & Ebert [47]. Thus, we assess, for example, if the level of pathogenicity to a particular host population is higher for the sympatric parasite than for the allopatric parasites (columns in figure 1). Consequently, comparisons of parasites within a particular host population are used as pathogenicity data (the columns in figure 1) and comparisons of hosts within a particular parasite population serve as resistance data (rows in figure 1).

To compare sympatric with allopatric combinations, we calculated a specificity index as the difference between the sympatric value and the allopatric mean of each column/row (figure 1), resulting in 10 indices for pathogenicity and resistance each. If the index differs from zero, then the sympatric value deviates from the allopatric mean, i.e. one of the antagonists is locally adapted, depending on the sign of the indices. For the control matrix, we calculated all possible indices (i.e. 50 indices for pathogenicity and resistance each) by taking one combination as sympatric and all other combinations of each column/row as allopatric. These values served as null distribution for either pathogenicity or resistance. For host reproduction, one replicate was excluded from analysis. For this replicate, reproduction was zero on the control pathogen, which we consider an artefact, because in all other cases and also in our previous experiences, control pathogens only slightly reduced reproduction compared with non-pathogenic conditions and because this particular host population did even produce offspring on the more pathogenic coevolved B. thuringiensis (R. D. Schulte & H. Schulenburg 2006, unpublished data, this study and [31]). As a consequence, we calculated 49 control indices for host reproduction and reduction in host reproduction.

We considered the following alternatives to test for local adaptation.

  1. We evaluated the overall distribution of the actual-value specificity indices (i.e. unsigned indices in contrast to absolute-value indices, as used below). If this distribution differed from zero (tested with a one-sample t-test), sympatric values varied from allopatric values and thus, either hosts or parasites were locally adapted. Therefore, this analysis should yield insight into the general occurrence of local adaptation.

  2. We also tested whether the distribution of actual-value specificity indices from the coevolution matrix is significantly different from that of the control matrix (Mann–Whitney U-test), which may reveal whether the inferred local adaptation pattern could have been produced by chance (as in the control matrix).

  3. We examined the overall distribution of absolute-value specificity indices. This assessment should allow identification of all those cases, where in some replicates the parasite and in others the host are locally adapted and which would produce an insignificant overall pattern in the analysis of the signed specificity indices. For this analysis, we compared the absolute-value specificity index distributions of the coevolution and the control matrices (Mann–Whitney U-test).

  4. We determined the significance of individual specificity indices for every single replicate via comparison with the distribution of the control matrix and the help of standard deviation scores (z-scores), following standard procedures [48]. In particular, for a standardized normal distribution, a certain percentage of the values fall within a defined range of the values. For example, a range of ±2 s.d. includes 95 per cent of the values and thus the probability of observing a value that falls out of this range is p ≤ 0.05. z-scores and z-tables allow the application of these rules for any normally distributed data. Thus, z-scores can be used to evaluate in how far a particular observed value falls within a particular range of a corresponding control distribution. z-tables contain the p-values for each of these z-scores. In the above example, the z-score for a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 is ±2, and every value, which falls out of the range of 2 s.d. around the mean, can be considered significantly different [48,49]. Vice versa, for any given value, one can calculate the probability that it belongs to a certain distribution of values by estimating its z-score and the corresponding p-value. Thus, we were able to estimate the z-score for each single value (i.e. the distance to the mean in x-fold standard deviations) and thus the probability that the single value belongs to the control distribution.

The control indices for killing rate and survival rate were transformed to ensure normal distribution of the data (killing rate: Embedded Image (x + 0.5); survival rate: (x + 1.5)2). The control indices for the other two measures were normally distributed (host reproduction and reduction in host reproduction). The sign of the significant untransformed values was taken as an indication of either parasite or host local adaptation.

To account for multiple testing and thus an increased type I error, we adjusted the significance level according to the false discovery rate [50], taking into account K = 13 related tests per trait measure (three types of overall analyses, points (i)–(iii), plus 10 tests for the analysis of individual specificity indices, point (iv)). For this adjustment procedure, the p-values of K-related tests were ranked in ascending order, so that the largest p-value had the highest rank i. We then identified the largest rank i that fulfils the condition of p ≤ 0.05*i/K. All hypotheses with a larger rank were rejected, all those with a smaller rank accepted [50]. Thus, the corrected critical significance level for killing rate was 0.007, for reduction in host reproduction 0.0128 and for host reproduction less than 2 × 10−6. For survival rate, no value was significant after applying the correction procedure.

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 15.0.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The analysis of actual-value specificity indices did not reveal any significant differences, neither when the coevolution values were compared against zero (t-tests, t9 ≤ |−1.906|, p ≥ 0.089) nor when they were tested against the control distribution (Mann–Whitney U: U10,49 or 50 ≥ 137, p ≥ 0.028). By contrast, the analysis of absolute specificity indices showed that the coevolution values for the two indices of pathogenicity (killing rate and reduction in host reproduction) differed significantly from the control distribution (Mann–Whitney U, killing rate: U10,50 = 91, p = 0.001; reduction in host reproduction: U10,49 = 106, p = 0.004). The remaining two indices (for host resistance) did not produce any significant differences (Mann–Whitney U: U10,49 or 50 ≥ 193, p ≥ 0.265).

The control distribution was also used to evaluate the significance of individual specificity indices. This approach revealed several significant cases of local adaptation, which referred to a total of four replicate populations (figure 2 and table 1). In particular, six indices for pathogenicity were significant (two for killing rate, four for reduction in host reproduction), belonging to a total of four replicates. Of these significant indices, two had larger values and four lower values for the sympatric combinations. Furthermore, two host resistance indices were significant (both for host reproduction), which referred to different replicates and which both produced lower values for the sympatric combinations.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Analysis of local adaptation for each individual replicate. (If significant, then the table indicates whether sympatric or allopatric populations produce the larger values (i.e. the specificity index is positive or negative, respectively). Italic font indicates host, and bold font parasite local adaptation. The distribution of the individual values is illustrated in figure 2.)

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Distribution of specificity indices (actual values). On the left side of each graph, the distribution of all possible control indices is displayed. On the right, boxplots indicate the distribution and stars indicate the individual values of the coevolution specificity indices. The black dashed lines show the mean (always zero); the grey dashed lines indicate the critical significance level, following analysis of z-scores and adjustment of the significance level according to the false discovery rate. Black stars highlight significant individual values. For boxplots, the horizontal line indicates the median, the box the 25% quartile above and below the median and the whiskers the data range. All graphs show original values, even if they were transformed for statistical analysis (see details in §2). (a) Parasite pathogenicity measured as host killing rate. (b) Parasite pathogenicity inferred from the reduction in host reproduction. (c) Host resistance as indicated by host survival rate. (d) Host resistance measured as host reproduction.

4. Discussion

Studies on local adaptation are essentially concerned with situations in which a population adapts to its environment [51]. In host–parasite coevolution, the host represents the environment for the parasite and vice versa [47]. Therefore, the environment changes depending on the evolution of the focal species. Obviously, both antagonists should evolve local adaptation: the parasite should increase its pathogenicity to optimally exploit the host, while the host has to evolve resistance to minimize damage caused by the parasite. It is conceivable that the direction of host–parasite local adaptation will differ between populations [21]. If either only the parasite or only the host is locally adapted, then this locally adapted antagonist is usually assumed to have had a higher evolutionary potential [4–7]. The latter is the focus of the ‘classical’ approach for the study of local adaptation, which looks at an overall pattern and thus only reveals local adaptation if the pattern is more or less uniform across the compared populations. Such an overall pattern would also be expected from directional adaptive evolution, where only one of the antagonists adapts, while the other does not show any reciprocal coevolutionary change.

For enhanced clarity in these studies, we propose to extend the available concepts and suggest usage of the following two terms:

  • — ‘local adaptation’, which refers to situations in which a significant overall pattern can be detected based for example on the classical study approach; and

  • — ‘mosaic adaptation’, which describes situations where in some populations it is the parasite and in others it is the host that is locally adapted.

The calculation of specificity indices combined with a controlled experimental set-up, as used in our study, allows disentangling local adaptation from mosaic adaption: an indication for local adaptation is given if the actual-value indices differ significantly from zero and a control distribution (describing random associations). Mosaic adaptation is suggested if the actual-value indices do not differ from zero, while at the same time the absolute indices show significant deviation from a control distribution, for example, owing to the presence of more extreme values and thus higher variance.

Based on these criteria, we only found support for mosaic adaptation: in case of the two measures for parasite pathogenicity, significant results were obtained using the absolute but not the actual-value indices. Thus, in some cases, hosts survive and reproduce better with sympatric than with allopatric parasites, indicating host local adaptation, while in other cases, hosts survive and reproduce worse with sympatric parasites, suggesting parasite local adaptation.

These results were confirmed through our evaluation of the individual populations. In this context, the control distribution is of particular importance, because it highlights the extent of local adaptation patterns that may result from random associations, as visible in the left parts of figure 2a–d. Thus, it helps to distinguish significant cases of local adaptation from chance effects and to evaluate the significance of individual specificity indices for the different replicates. Based on these comparisons, we identified the following patterns (table 1).

  • — Allopatric parasites reduce host fitness more strongly than sympatric parasites as measured with both killing rate and reduction of host reproduction (two replicates). This pattern is consistent with host local adaptation.

  • — Sympatric parasites reduce reproduction of hosts more strongly than allopatric parasites and allopatric hosts produce more offspring in the presence of a parasite than the sympatric hosts (two replicates). This pattern indicates parasite local adaptation.

  • — No evidence for adaptation (six replicates).

How can we explain such a ‘geographical’ diversification between our replicates, although they all evolved under the same environmental conditions (i.e. controlled laboratory conditions)?

On the one hand, the observed pattern may be owing to the time lag of coevolution [4,16], so that at a different time point, we could have obtained a different pattern of local adaptation. In future studies, the importance of such time lags could be revealed by examining changes in local adaptation patterns over time [52]. On the other hand, our replicate populations do represent a selection mosaic, since they are likely to vary in several random factors, which cannot be controlled entirely under laboratory conditions, including small temperature variations or random differences in the genetic composition of replicate populations [31].

The fact that we could not detect local adaptation in six out of 10 replicate populations may have different reasons.

First, these replicate populations may be coevolutionary coldspots, i.e. there is no reciprocal coevolution between parasite and host. This is generally consistent with the geographical mosaic of coevolution [21]. At the same time, the results from our previous study [31] may suggest that the finding of six coldspots out of 10 possibilities (and thus more than half of the sample) is too high. In that study, significant changes in multiple phenotypic and genetic traits were found for the same experimentally evolved material. It was of no relevance that the experimental populations were initiated with only three genotypes for the parasite or derived from the offspring of repeated reciprocal crosses among three natural isolates for the host, which could have led to low genetic variation and thus low evolutionary potential in the two antagonists. However, our previous results demonstrated that experimental coevolution did lead to reciprocal phenotypic adaptations among the two antagonists and to an increase in genetic diversity for parasite toxin gene loci and several host loci. Furthermore, coevolution was associated with an increased change in allele frequencies over time, consistent with constant adaptation to the coevolving antagonist, which in turn should result in local adaptation patterns.

Second, it is possible that the antagonists might have evolved non-specific responses, like general resistance, which would then also be efficient towards non-coevolving pathogens.

Third, the ability to detect local adaptation depends on the exact time point within the coevolutionary cycles. If coevolution between parasite and host is currently balanced, neither is expected to be locally adapted.

Fourth, coevolution may act on different traits in the different populations [20,53,54]. Since we observed genetic diversification between replicate populations [31], it is likely that the antagonists evolved various strategies. Because we only evaluated a limited set of traits and because it is well known that the choice of traits can be crucial for the detection of local adaptation [18–20], we may have missed some of these strategies and thus failed to identify local adaptation in some replicate populations. In detail, we focused on killing rate as a measure for pathogenicity, because it should directly associate with parasite fitness during experimental evolution, where we specifically selected for killing pathogens [31]. Nonetheless, other traits like infection rate or intensity, which also correlate directly with parasite fitness, may have allowed identification of additional cases of local adaptation and should thus be included in further studies in this system.

The comparison of individual specificity indices to a control distribution provides a powerful tool to characterize the geographical mosaic of coevolution. The approach is particularly valuable, because it allows inference of local adaptation in some populations even if an overall pattern is absent. It however requires the availability of a control distribution that might not be straightforward in nature. Natural populations are furthermore problematic as the environment is known to influence local adaptation. Laine [27], for example, could not verify local adaptation in a field transplant experiment, although she revealed local adaptation for exactly the same populations in a laboratory-based cross-infection study. As the abiotic environment crucially influences the interaction between host and parasite [55], but may also obscure local adaptation, experimental designs to study local adaptation in natural populations become rather complicated [28].

Thus, experimental evolution under controlled laboratory conditions offers a promising alternative, as it allows for testing of the importance of specific environmental factors. This approach was previously used to study, for example, the effect of the genetic background [19], migration or gene flow [9,13,56] on local adaptation or whether an adaptation cost exists [57,58]. However, with one exception, the previous studies did not include a control evolution treatment. To our knowledge, the only exception is the evolution experiment by Poullain and co-workers [59]. In this study, two selection regimes were imposed: either coevolution or adaptive evolution of phages with their bacterial hosts. The two treatments produced different results: the evolved phages were better at infecting their ‘sympatric’ hosts (ancestral host for coevolution) when compared with the coevolved phages. By contrast, the coevolved phages were not locally adapted. These results highlighted that overall local adaptation may be produced by directional adaptive evolution but not necessarily coevolution. This study and our study consistently demonstrate that experimental evolution approaches provide new insights into local adaptation, because coevolutionary scenarios can be compared with control evolution treatments, which then help to reveal the exact consequences of coevolution versus other types of selective dynamics.

Acknowledgements

We thank Nils Anthes, Claudia Böhnisch, Thomas D'Souza, Aurore Dubuffet, Dieter Ebert, Leila El Masri, Christopher Schwarzer, Nadine Timmermeyer and the members of the Department for Animal Evolutionary Ecology, University Tübingen, for advice and support. We also thank two referees and the associate editor for valuable advice. This study was funded through grants of the German Science Foundation to H.S. (DFG grant numbers SCHU 1415/1-2 and 5-1).

  • Received January 4, 2011.
  • Accepted January 17, 2011.
  • This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society

References

  1. ↵
    1. Woolhouse M. E.,
    2. Webster J. P.,
    3. Domingo E.,
    4. Charlesworth B.,
    5. Levin B. R.
    2002 Biological and biomedical implications of the co-evolution of pathogens and their hosts. Nat. Genet. 32, 569–577. doi:10.1038/ng1202-569 (doi:10.1038/ng1202-569)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Ebert D.,
    2. Hamilton W. D.
    1996 Sex against virulence: the coevolution of parasitic diseases. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 79–82. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81047-0 (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81047-0)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Van Zandt P. A.
    1998 Local adaptation and host–parasite interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 214–216. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01358-5 (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01358-5)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Kaltz O.,
    2. Shykoff J. A.
    1998 Local adaptation in host–parasite systems. Heredity 81, 361–370. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00435.x (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2540.1998.00435.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Greischar M. A.,
    2. Koskella B.
    2007 A synthesis of experimental work on parasite local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 10, 418–434. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01028.x (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01028.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Lajeunesse M. J.,
    2. Forbes M. R.
    2002 Host range and local parasite adaptation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 703–710. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1943 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1943)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Hoeksema J. D.,
    2. Forde S. E.
    2008 A meta-analysis of factors affecting local adaptation between interacting species. Am. Nat. 171, 275–290. doi:10.1086/527496 (doi:10.1086/527496)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Laine A. L.
    2009 Role of coevolution in generating biological diversity: spatially divergent selection trajectories. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2957–2970. doi:10.1093/jxb/erp168 (doi:10.1093/jxb/erp168)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Morgan A. D.,
    2. Gandon S.,
    3. Buckling A.
    2005 The effect of migration on local adaptation in a coevolving host–parasite system. Nature 437, 253–256. doi:10.1038/nature03913 (doi:10.1038/nature03913)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Capowiez Y.,
    3. Dubois Y.,
    4. Michalakis Y.,
    5. Olivieri I.
    1996 Local adaptation and gene-for-gene coevolution in a metapopulation model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1003–1009. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0148 (doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0148)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Michalakis Y.
    2002 Local adaptation, evolutionary potential and host–parasite coevolution: interactions between migration, mutation, population size and generation time. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 451–462. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00402.x (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00402.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Ridenhour B. J.,
    2. Nuismer S. L.
    2007 Polygenic traits and parasite local adaptation. Evolution 61, 368–376. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00029.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00029.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Vogwill T.,
    2. Fenton A.,
    3. Brockhurst M. A.
    2010 How does spatial dispersal network affect the evolution of parasite local adaptation? Evolution 64, 1795–1801. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00937.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00937.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Vogwill T.,
    2. Fenton A.,
    3. Brockhurst M. A.
    2008 The impact of parasite dispersal on antagonistic host–parasite coevolution. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1252–1258. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01574.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01574.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Nuismer S. L.
    2009 Interactions between genetic drift, gene flow, and selection mosaics drive parasite local adaptation. Am. Nat. 173, 212–224. doi:10.1086/593706 (doi:10.1086/593706)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Morand S.,
    2. Manning S. D.,
    3. Woolhouse M. E. J.
    1996 Parasite–host coevolution and geographic patterns of parasite infectivity and host susceptibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 119–128. doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0019 (doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0019)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Decaestecker E.,
    2. Gaba S.,
    3. Raeymaekers J. A. M.,
    4. Stoks R.,
    5. Van Kerckhoven L.,
    6. Ebert D.,
    7. De Meester L.
    2007 Host–parasite ‘Red Queen’ dynamics archived in pond sediment. Nature 450, 870–873. doi:10.1038/nature06291 (doi:10.1038/nature06291)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Refardt D.,
    2. Ebert D.
    2007 Inference of parasite local adaptation using two different fitness components. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 921–929. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01307.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01307.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Adiba S.,
    2. Huet M.,
    3. Kaltz O.
    2010 Experimental evolution of local parasite maladaptation. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1195–1205. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01985.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.01985.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Franceschi N.,
    2. Cornet S.,
    3. Bollache L.,
    4. Dechaume-Moncharmont F.-X.,
    5. Bauer A.,
    6. Motreuil S.,
    7. Rigaud T.
    2010 Variation between populations and local adaptation in acanthocephalan-induced parasite manipulation. Evolution 64, 2417–2430.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Thompson J. N.
    2005 The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  17. ↵
    1. Laine A. L.
    2008 Temperature-mediated patterns of local adaptation in a natural plant–pathogen metapopulation. Ecol. Lett. 11, 327–337. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01146.x (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01146.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Gavrilets S.,
    2. Michalakis Y.
    2008 Effects of environmental heterogeneity of victim–exploiter coevolution. Evolution 62, 3100–3116. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00513.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00513.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Day T.
    2009 Evolutionary epidemiology and the dynamics of adaptation. Evolution 63, 826–838. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00609.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00609.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Cremieux L.,
    2. et al.
    2008 Potential contribution of natural enemies to patterns of local adaptation in plants. New Phytol. 180, 524–533. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02545.x (doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02545.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Ortegon-Campos I.,
    2. Parra-Tabla V.,
    3. Abdala-Roberts L.,
    4. Herrera C. M.
    2009 Local adaptation of Ruellia nudiflora (Acanthaceae) to biotic counterparts: complex scenarios revealed when two herbivore guilds are considered. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 2288–2297. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01847.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01847.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Laine A. L.
    2007 Detecting local adaptation in a natural plant–pathogen metapopulation: a laboratory vs. field transplant approach. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1665–1673. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01359.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01359.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Nuismer S. L.,
    2. Gandon S.
    2008 Moving beyond common-garden and transplant designs: insight into the causes of local adaptation in species interactions. Am. Nat. 171, 658–668. doi:10.1086/587077 (doi:10.1086/587077)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Schulenburg H.,
    2. Müller S.
    2004 Natural variation in the response of Caenorhabditis elegans towards Bacillus thuringiensis. Parasitology 128, 433–443. doi:10.1017/S003118200300461X (doi:10.1017/S003118200300461X)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Schulenburg H.,
    2. Kurz C. L.,
    3. Ewbank J. J.
    2004 Evolution of the innate immune system: the worm perspective. Immunol. Rev. 198, 36–58. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0125.x (doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0125.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Schulte R. D.,
    2. Makus C.,
    3. Hasert B.,
    4. Michiels N. K.,
    5. Schulenburg H.
    2010 Multiple reciprocal adaptations and rapid genetic change upon experimental coevolution of an animal host and its microbial parasite. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 7359–7364. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003113107 (doi:10.1073/pnas.1003113107)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Borgonie G.,
    2. Claeys M.,
    3. Leyns F.,
    4. Arnaut G.,
    5. De Waele D.,
    6. Coomans A.
    1996 Effect of nematicidal Bacillus thuringiensis strains on free-living nematodes. 1. Light microscopic observations, species and biological stage specificity and identification of resistant mutants of Caenorhabditis elegans. Fund. Appl. Nematol. 19, 391–398.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Borgonie G.,
    2. Claeys M.,
    3. De Waele D.,
    4. Coomans A.
    1995 Ultrastructure of the intestine of the bacteriophagous nematodes Caenorhabditis elegans, Panagrolaimus superbus and Acrobeloides maximus (Nematoda: Rhabditida). Fund. Appl. Nematol. 18, 123–133.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Wei J.-Z.,
    2. Hale K.,
    3. Carta L.,
    4. Platzer E.,
    5. Wong C.,
    6. Fang S.-C.,
    7. Aroian R. V.
    2003 Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins that target nematodes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2760–2765. doi:10.1073/pnas.0538072100 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0538072100)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Alper S.,
    2. McBride S. J.,
    3. Lackford B.,
    4. Freedman J. H.,
    5. Schwartz D. A.
    2007 Specificity and complexity of the Caenorhabditis elegans innate immune response. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 5544–5553. doi:10.1128/MCB.02070-06 (doi:10.1128/MCB.02070-06)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wong D.,
    2. Bazopoulou D.,
    3. Pujol N.,
    4. Tavernarakis N.,
    5. Ewbank J. J.
    2007 Genome-wide investigation reveals pathogen-specific and shared signatures in the response of Caenorhabditis elegans to infection. Genome Biol. 8, 1–18. doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r194 (doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r194).
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Schulenburg H.,
    2. Hoeppner M. P.,
    3. Weiner J.,
    4. Bornberg-Bauer E.
    2008 Specificity of the innate immune system and diversity of C-type lectin domain (CTLD) proteins in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Immunobiology 213, 237–250. doi:10.1016/j.imbio.2007.12.004 (doi:10.1016/j.imbio.2007.12.004)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Payne J. M.
    1992 Isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis that are active against nematodes. US patent 5151363.
    1. Payne J. M.,
    2. Cannon R. J. C.,
    3. Bagley A. L.
    1993 Bacillus thuringiensis isolates for controlling acarides. US patent 5424410.
  30. ↵
    1. Schnepf H. E.,
    2. Schwab G. E.,
    3. Payne J. M.,
    4. Narva K. E.,
    5. Foncerrada L.
    2001 Nematicidal proteins. US patent 20010010932.
  31. ↵
    1. Griffitts J. S.,
    2. Aroian R. V.
    2005 Many roads to resistance: how invertebrates adapt to Bt toxins. Bioessays 27, 614–624. doi:10.1002/bies.20239 (doi:10.1002/bies.20239)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Haber M.,
    2. Schüngel M.,
    3. Putz A.,
    4. Muller S.,
    5. Hasert B.,
    6. Schulenburg H.
    2005 Evolutionary history of Caenorhabditis elegans inferred from microsatellites: evidence for spatial and temporal genetic differentiation and the occurrence of outbreeding. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 160–173. doi:10.1093/molbev/msh264 (doi:10.1093/molbev/msh264)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Schulenburg H.,
    2. Ewbank J. J.
    2004 Diversity and specificity in the interaction between Caenorhabditis elegans and the pathogen Serratia marcescens. BMC Evol. Biol. 4, 49. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-49 (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-49)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Sicard M.,
    2. Hering S.,
    3. Schulte R.,
    4. Gaudriault S.,
    5. Schulenburg H.
    2007 The effect of Photorhabdus luminescens (Enterobacteriaceae) on the survival, development, reproduction and behaviour of Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematoda: Rhabditidae). Environ. Microbiol. 9, 12–25. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01099.x (doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01099.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Stiernagle T.
    2006 Maintenance of C. elegans. In WormBook. The C. elegans Research Community. See http://www.wormbook.org.
  36. ↵
    1. Leyns F.,
    2. Borgonie G.,
    3. Arnaut G.,
    4. De Waele D.
    1995 Nematicidal activity of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates. Fund. Appl. Nematol. 18, 211–218.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Kawecki T. J.,
    2. Ebert D.
    2004 Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1225–1241. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00684.x (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00684.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Sokal R. R.,
    2. Rohlf F. J.
    1995 Biometry, 3rd edn. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
  39. ↵
    1. Gravetter F. J.,
    2. Wallnau L. B.
    2008 Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
  40. ↵
    1. Benjamini Y.,
    2. Hochberg Y.
    1995 Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Williams G.
    1966 Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  42. ↵
    1. Gandon S.,
    2. Buckling A.,
    3. Decaestecker E.,
    4. Day T.
    2008 Host–parasite coevolution and patterns of adaptation across time and space. J. Evol. Biol. 21, 1861–1866. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01598.x (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01598.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Brockhurst M. A.,
    2. Rainey P. B.,
    3. Buckling A.
    2004 The effect of spatial heterogeneity and parasites on the evolution of host diversity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 107–111. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2556 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2556)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Buckling A.,
    2. Rainey P. B.
    2002 The role of parasites in sympatric and allopatric host diversification. Nature 420, 496–499. doi:10.1038/nature01164 (doi:10.1038/nature01164)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Lazzaro B. P.,
    2. Little T. J.
    2009 Immunity in a variable world. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 15–26. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0141 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0141)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Forde S. E.,
    2. Thompson J. N.,
    3. Bohannan B. J.
    2004 Adaptation varies through space and time in a coevolving host–parasitoid interaction. Nature 431, 841–844. doi:10.1038/nature02906 (doi:10.1038/nature02906)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Magalhaes S.,
    2. Blanchet E.,
    3. Egas M.,
    4. Olivieri I.
    2009 Are adaptation costs necessary to build up a local adaptation pattern? BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 12. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-182 (doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-182)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Nidelet T.,
    2. Kaltz O.
    2007 Direct and correlated responses to selection in a host–parasite system: testing for the emergence of genotype specificity. Evolution 61, 1803–1811. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00162.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00162.x)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Poullain V.,
    2. Gandon S.,
    3. Brockhurst M. A.,
    4. Buckling A.,
    5. Hochberg M. E.
    2008 The evolution of specificity in evolving and coevolving antagonistic interactions between a bacteria and its phage. Evolution 62, 1–11.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
PreviousNext
22 September 2011
Volume 278, issue 1719
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences: 278 (1719)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Share
Host–parasite local adaptation after experimental coevolution of Caenorhabditis elegans and its microparasite Bacillus thuringiensis
Rebecca D. Schulte, Carsten Makus, Barbara Hasert, Nico K. Michiels, Hinrich Schulenburg
Proc. R. Soc. B 2011 278 2832-2839; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0019. Published 10 August 2011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Host–parasite local adaptation after experimental coevolution of Caenorhabditis elegans and its microparasite Bacillus thuringiensis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences web site.
Print
Manage alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

Host–parasite local adaptation after experimental coevolution of Caenorhabditis elegans and its microparasite Bacillus thuringiensis

Rebecca D. Schulte, Carsten Makus, Barbara Hasert, Nico K. Michiels, Hinrich Schulenburg
Proc. R. Soc. B 2011 278 2832-2839; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0019. Published 10 August 2011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Download

Article reuse

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Material and methods
    • 3. Results
    • 4. Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

See related subject areas:

  • evolution
  • ecology

Related articles

Cited by

Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad

Open biology

  • PROCEEDINGS B
    • About this journal
    • Contact information
    • Purchasing information
    • Submit
    • Author benefits
    • Open access membership
    • Recommend to your library
    • FAQ
    • Help

Royal society publishing

  • ROYAL SOCIETY PUBLISHING
    • Our journals
    • Open access
    • Publishing policies
    • Conferences
    • Podcasts
    • News
    • Blog
    • Manage your account
    • Terms & conditions
    • Cookies

The royal society

  • THE ROYAL SOCIETY
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Fellows
    • Events
    • Grants, schemes & awards
    • Topics & policy
    • Collections
    • Venue hire

Copyright © 2018 The Royal Society