Pathogen Pressure Puts Immune Defense Into Perspective Nicholas P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Integrative and Comparative Biology, volume 51, number 4, pp. 563–576 doi:10.1093/icb/icr011 SYMPOSIUM Pathogen Pressure Puts Immune Defense into Perspective Nicholas P. C. Horrocks,1 Kevin D. Matson and B. Irene Tieleman Animal Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, PO Box 11103, 9700 CC, Groningen, The Netherlands From the symposium ‘‘Bridging the Gap Between Ecoimmunology and Disease Ecology’’ presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 3–7, 2011, at Salt Lake City, Utah. 1E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded from Synopsis The extent to which organisms can protect themselves from disease depends on both the immune defenses they maintain and the pathogens they face. At the same time, immune systems are shaped by the antigens they encounter, both over ecological and evolutionary time. Ecological immunologists often recognize these interactions, yet ecological immunology currently lacks major efforts to characterize the environmental, host-independent, antigenic pressures to which all animals are exposed. Failure to quantify relevant diseases and pathogens in studies of ecological immunology http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/ leads to contradictory hypotheses. In contrast, including measures of environmental and host-derived commensals, pathogens, and other immune-relevant organisms will strengthen the field of ecological immunology. In this article, we examine how pathogens and other organisms shape immune defenses and highlight why such information is essential for a better understanding of the causes of variation in immune defenses. We introduce the concept of ‘‘operative protection’’ for understanding the role of immunologically relevant organisms in shaping immune defense profiles, and demonstrate how the evolutionary implications of immune function are best understood in the context of the pressures that diseases and pathogens bring to bear on their hosts. We illustrate common mistakes in characterizing by guest on December 9, 2011 these immune-selective pressures, and provide suggestions for the use of molecular and other methods for measuring immune-relevant organisms. Integrating immunology and ecology Many factors influence, and can generate variation The immune system bridges the divide between in- in, immune responses: these include sex, nutritional ternal and external environments, integrating an or- status, social dominance, exercise, and seasonality, as ganism’s physiology and environment. In doing so, well as trade-offs in resource allocation between the the immune system acts as a barrier to infection and immune system and other physiological systems such disease, identifying threats and coordinating neces- as reproduction (Sadd and Schmid-Hempel 2009; sary responses. Despite its complexity, immunolo- Schulenburg et al. 2009). Over both ecological and gists have elucidated many of the cellular processes evolutionary timescales, however, the most enduring and specific mechanisms that allow the immune selective pressures on the immune system are the system to function. Yet our knowledge of how evo- myriad challenges posed by everything that lutionary pressures shape immune systems is still immune systems encounter. Particularly important incomplete. in terms of evolution are interactions between the Ecological immunology promotes the use of im- immune system and organisms with the ability to munological measures to test ecological and evolu- live in, or on, a host and the potential to evolve in tionary hypotheses. The field arose from a desire to response to current immune defenses. We refer to explain the variation in immune function that is ob- the specific suite of components that generate these served within and among individuals, populations, evolutionary and ecological selective forces on the and species, across environments and over time. immune system as the ‘‘immunobiome’’ and their Advanced Access publication June 20, 2011 ß The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: [email protected]. 564 N. P.C. Horrocks et al. Fig. 1 A representation of the antigenic universe, which consists of all the possible antigens that any immune system could ever encounter. This universe includes antigenic, immunogenic, inflammatory, and toxic agents. Within the antigenic universe is the immu- nobiome. The immunobiome contains all the living organisms that can live in or on a host and with the potential to evolve in response to immune defenses. The immunobiome does not include other immuno-reactive particles such as dust that cannot multiply. Two major components of the immunobiome, in terms of the evolution of the immune system, are commensals and pathogens. Since some Downloaded from commensals may be pathogenic under suitable conditions, these groups are not mutually exclusive. Immunobiome components that fall outside these two categories (dotted area) include environmental microbes such as ‘‘pseudo-commensals’’ (Rook 2009), which although regularly encountered by hosts, do not gain any benefit from their temporary association with a host, yet may still shape regulatory circuits of the immune system. Scaling of the different subsets is arbitrary. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/ ability to shape immune defenses as ‘‘immunobiotic immunology. Rather than being relegated to anony- pressure’’ (Fig. 1). Understanding the interactions of mous, yet highly relevant sources of variation, the the immune system with immunobiomes is essential diverse constituents of the immunobiome and the for helping to explain patterns of immunological evolutionary pressures they exert must be seen as variation. central to ecoimmunological studies (Bordes and In light of immunological costs, animals should Morand 2009; Sadd and Schmid-Hempel 2009; match their immune defenses (any anatomical, Graham et al. 2011; Pedersen and Babayan 2011;). chemical, physiological, or behavioral barrier main- by guest on December 9, 2011 tained by an animal that inhibits or controls the es- Interactions with entire immunobiomes tablishment and reproduction of any element of the shape immune defenses, but pathogens immunobiome within or on the animal) to the threats that they face (Sheldon and Verhulst 1996; and commensals are particularly Tschirren and Richner 2006). However, the nature important of immunobiomes is poorly understood. For exam- Animals live in diverse and variable environments ple, does their basic composition differ among envi- and their immune systems must interact with and ronments? Which components most strongly shape respond to equally diverse and variable immuno- immune defenses in which hosts? Understanding biomes. However, across immunobiomes, two cate- these issues will be central to solving broader chal- gories of organisms that lie at all points along a lenges in immunology such as the consequences of continuum from benign, or even beneficial, to harm- emergent infectious diseases (Jones et al. 2008) or the ful, are expected to be particularly important sources consequences for health of altering commensal mi- of immunobiotic pressure (Fig. 1). At the detrimen- crobial communities (Blaser and Falkow 2009). We tal end of this continuum are pathogens. These propose that to advance ecological immunology, microparasites (viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protists) measures of the immunobiome that are independent and macroparasites (e.g., helminths, ticks, and lice) of immune indices should be developed and incor- can potentially harm host tissues through their in- porated into future studies. Much as data on avail- herent ability to breach immune defenses that nor- ability of food are required for an understanding of mally restrict other organisms. Pathogens seek to diet selection (e.g., Belovsky 1981) and environmen- circumvent host immune defenses and may disrupt tal temperature profiles are required for explaining normal immune processes (Tortorella et al. 2000; heat balance (e.g., Tieleman and Williams 2002), Finlay and McFadden 2006). This might include im- knowledge of immunobiomes and immune stimuli munosuppression (Babu et al. 2006; Jackson et al. is essential when testing hypotheses in ecological 2009) or shifting of the immune system toward a Pathogen pressure and immune defense 565 specific mix of defenses (Maizels and Yazdanbakhsh protection from infection and enhancement of fitness 2003). to an animal in the wild? We advocate that levels of Of equal importance to the evolution of the immune defense be considered relative to the immu- immune system, commensals normally sit at the nobiotic pressures that are encountered by an organ- benign end of the pathogenicity spectrum. ism, focusing on effectiveness of protection rather Benefitting from intimate associations with their than upon magnitude of response (see also e.g., host, commensals can also modulate immune re- Viney et al. 2005; Graham et al. 2011; Pedersen sponses and play an essential role in development and Babayan 2011). We refer to this of the immune system (Rakoff-Nahoum et al. 2004; immunobiome-specific assessment of immune de- Mazmanian et al. 2005; Rook 2009; Round and fense as ‘‘operative protection.’’ Operative protection Mazmanian 2009). Different commensal communi- encompasses the fitness-enhancing protection against ties might offer distinct advantages or disadvantages immunobiotic pressure (and immunopathology) af- in terms