Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26779200›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2015

Epidemiological and Evolutionary Outcomes in Gene-for-Gene and Matching Allele Models.

Peter H Thrall, Luke G Barrett, Peter N Dodds, Jeremy J Burdon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Quantitative disease resistance in wildEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Coevolutionary theory of hosts and parasites.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Genetic Analysis of Plant Pathogens Natural Populations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effector Avr4 inFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter H ThrallCSIRO Agriculture, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Luke G BarrettCSIRO Agriculture, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Peter N DoddsCSIRO Agriculture, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Jeremy J BurdonCSIRO Agriculture, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene-for-gene (GFG) and matching-allele (MA) models are qualitatively different paradigms for describing the outcome of genetic interactions between hosts and pathogens. The GFG paradigm was largely built on the foundations of Flor's early work on the flax-flax rust interaction and is based on the concept of genetic recognition leading to incompatible disease outcomes, typical of host immune recognition. In contrast, the MA model is based on the assumption that genetic recognition leads to compatible interactions, which can result when pathogens require specific host factors to cause infection. Results from classical MA and GFG models have led to important predictions regarding various coevolutionary phenomena, including the role of fitness costs associated with resistance and infectivity, the distribution of resistance genes in wild populations, patterns of local adaptation and the evolution and maintenance of sexual reproduction. Empirical evidence (which we review briefly here), particularly from recent molecular advances in understanding of the mechanisms that determine the outcome of host-pathogen encounters, suggests considerable variation in specific details of the functioning of interactions between hosts and pathogens, which may contain elements of both models. In this regard, GFG and MA scenarios likely represent endpoints of a continuum of potentially more complex interactions that occur in nature. Increasingly, this has been recognized in theoretical studies of coevolutionary processes in plant host-pathogen and animal host-parasite associations (e.g., departures from strict GFG/MA assumptions, diploid genetics, multi-step infection processes). However, few studies have explored how different genetic assumptions about host resistance and pathogen infectivity might impact on disease epidemiology or pathogen persistence within and among populations. Here, we use spatially explicit simulations of the basic MA and GFG scenarios to highlight qualitative differences between these scenarios with regard to patterns of disease and impacts on host demography. Given that such impacts drive evolutionary trajectories, future theoretical advances that aim to capture more complex genetic scenarios should explicitly address the interaction between epidemiology and different models of host-pathogen interaction genetics.

Indexed as

coevolutiondisease resistanceepidemiologymetapopulationpathogen infectivityspatial structure

Identifiers

PMID26779200
PMCPMC4703789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.