brunner
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
• The within-pond epidemiology of an
amphibian ranavirusA synthetic modeling approach
Jesse Brunner
Washington State University
![Page 2: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Questions• What which feature(s) of host or pathogen biology are
required to reproduce the broad features of ranaviral
outbreaks in pond-breeding amphibians (i.e., Wood frogs,
Rana sylvatica)?
• Initially low prevalence
• Sudden onset of mortality event in mid-to-late summer (even though Rv
introduced at the beginning of or early in the larval period)
• Some metamorphs leave the pond infected
• How important is water-borne transmission vs direct
transmission?
• How important is the heterogeneity in susceptibility we have
seen in laboratory experiments?
![Page 3: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Model assumptions / conditions
• Large population (40–400
tadpoles / m2)
• Medium-sized pond (600 m2
x 1m deep)
• Only one species: Rana • Only one species: Rana
sylvatica
• Epidemic starts from a
single infected tadpole
• Transmission is (quickly)
saturating function of
density
(Brunner et al. in prep)
![Page 4: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Initial model
• SIS model with recovery to susceptible state (no immunity)
• No exposed class (immediately infectious)
• Epidemic is far too early
![Page 5: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Initial model
• SIS model with recovery to susceptible state (no immunity)
• No exposed class (immediately infectious)
• Epidemic is far too early
![Page 6: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Initial model• Does a lower rate of transmission help?
• Only if we lower transmission rate by an order of magnitude!
• Then the epidemic is too slow
![Page 7: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
water-borne transmission
• Add term for concentration-specific transmission from water
• Probability of infection from LD50 study in Warne et al. 2011
• Add terms for accumulation and loss of virus in water
• Viral shedding: rough estimates range from 102 to 104 pfu/day in lab
experiments with Ambystoma nebulosum (Storfer et al. in prep, Brunner
unpublished data)
Half-life of ranaviruses ranges from • Half-life of ranaviruses ranges from
• 9.65 days in “unsterile” pond water at 20°C (Nazir et al. 2011)
• 0.57 days in pond water at 20–24°C (Johnson & Brunner in prep; see
poster)
![Page 8: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
water-borne transmission
• Very few tadpoles infected from the water (even with lower
transmission)
![Page 9: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
water-borne transmission
• Does a longer half-life of Rv in water help?
• Even with very long persistence times, water-borne
transmission contributes very few infections
![Page 10: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
water-borne transmission
• What about a greater shedding rate?
Even with a
• low rate of direct transmission,
• long persistence time, &
• high shedding rate
water-borne transmission is still minor source of infection compared to direct contacts
![Page 11: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Metamorphs & Developmental stages
• Add terms for
metamorphosing tadpoles
(susceptible & infected)
• Rate of metamorphosis is
1/duration of larval period (60-
80d)
• Explicitly model
development from Gosner
(1960) stages 20 – 40
• Rate of development is #
stages / duration of larval period
![Page 12: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Metamorphs & Developmental stages
• Does not change the timing or shape of epidemics
![Page 13: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Probability of ranavirus infection and
death changes dramatically with stage
• Modified the transmission terms by
multiplying by the stage-specific odds-
ratio as predicted logistic-regression
Warne et al. 2011
STAGE-SPECIFIC SUSCEPTIBILITY
ratio as predicted logistic-regression
![Page 14: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
STAGE-SPECIFIC SUSCEPTIBILITY
• Timing of the epidemic is right with estimated transmission rate
• See the sharp increase in cases
![Page 15: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Conclusions
• Water-borne transmission is minor relative to direct
transmission (and negligible under more realistic
assumptions)
• Environmental heterogeneity may slow transmission• Environmental heterogeneity may slow transmission
• Epidemics appear later
• More gradual onset of mortality
• Smaller epidemic
• Stage-specific susceptibility may be key in timing,
dynamics, and outcome of ranaviral outbreaks in Wood frogs
![Page 16: Brunner](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022042817/55a97dec1a28ab8f668b4702/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Open questions
• How important is transmission from carcasses?
• An important role for scavengers and decomposers?
• Does the stage-specific susceptibility hypothesis hold for
other species?
• Are multihost communities radically different?
• Can these models match real epidemics?