ABSTRACT
Closely related populations often differ in resistance to a given parasite, as measured by infection success or failure. Yet, the immunological mechanisms of these evolved differences are rarely specified. Does resistance evolve via changes to the host’s ability to recognize that an infection exists, actuate an effective immune response, or attenuate that response? We tested whether each of these phases of the host response contributed to threespine sticklebacks’ recently evolved resistance to their tapeworm Schistocephalus solidus. While marine stickleback and some susceptible lake fish permit fast-growing tapeworms, other lake populations are resistant and suppress tapeworm growth via a fibrosis response. We subjected lab-raised fish from three populations (susceptible marine ‘ancestors’, a susceptible lake, a resistant lake), to a novel immune challenge (injection of: 1) a saline control, 2) alum, a generalized pro-inflammatory adjuvant that causes fibrosis, 3) a tapeworm protein extract, and 4) a combination of alum and tapeworm protein). All three populations were capable of a robust fibrosis response to the alum treatments (but not the saline control). Yet, only the resistant population exhibited a fibrosis response to the tapeworm protein alone. Thus, these populations differed in their ability to recognize the tapeworm but shared an intact fibrosis pathway. However, the resistant population also initiated fibrosis faster, and was able to attenuate fibrosis, unlike the susceptible populations slow but longer-lasting response to alum. As fibrosis has presumed pathological side-effects, this difference may reflect adaptions to mitigate costs of immunity in the resistant population. Broadly, our results confirm that parasite detection, activation speed, and immune attenuation simultaneously contribute to adaptations to parasite infection in natural populations.
IMPACT SUMMARY Dramatic variation in parasite resistance is common in nature, even to the same parasite, yet we are still working to understand the mechanisms of how such differences evolve. Many evolution studies focus on the broad outcomes of infection (infected or not) when studying this question, without specifying what part of the immune response has evolved. Here, we experimentally partition different sequential stages in the host immune response (recognition, actuation, attenuation), to evaluate which stage(s) underly the evolution of host resistance to infection. This study compares three populations of threespine stickleback that naturally differ in their exposure and their ability to resist infections of a freshwater tapeworm. These include a “resistant” lake population, a “susceptible” lake population, and an ancestral marine population that is rarely exposed to the tapeworm in nature, but is susceptible when exposed in the lab. The resistant population exhibits a fibrosis immune response to infection, which has previously been linked to suppressed tapeworm growth and viability. We injected different immune challenges directly into the site of infection (peritoneal cavity) and measured the subsequent fibrosis response through time. We found that all populations were capable of producing fibrosis in response to a general immune stimulant (alum). But, only the resistant population was able to recognize and respond to tapeworm protein alone. This population also responded faster than the others, within 24 hours, and attenuated its fibrosis by 90 days post-injections whereas the other populations exhibited a slower response that did not attenuate in the study time-frame. We concluded that variation in parasite recognition, an early phase in the host response, shapes the evolution of the initiation and resolution of the physical response to infection. Broadly, our results support that parasite detection mechanisms could play a key role in the rapid evolution of parasite resistance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
Author email addresses: Lauren Fuess, lauren.fuess{at}uconn.edu, Mariah Kenney, mariah.kenney{at}uconn.edu, Meghan Maciejewski, meghan.maciejewski{at}uconn.edu, Joseph Marini, joseph.marini{at}uconn.edu, Kum Chuan Shim, will.shim{at}utexas.edu, Dan Bolnick, daniel.bolnick{at}uconn.edu
