In the wild, hosts often encounter and must respond to novel pathogens, that is pathogens that they have not encountered in recent evolutionary history, and therefore are not adapted to. How hosts respond to these novel pathogens and the outcome of such infections can be shaped by the host’s evolutionary history, especially by how well adapted the host is to its native pathogens, that is pathogens they have evolved with. Host adaptation to one pathogen can either increase its susceptibility to a novel pathogen, due to specialization of immune defenses and trade-offs between different arms of the immune system or can decrease susceptibility to novel pathogens by virtue of cross-resistance. Using laboratory Drosophila melanogaster populations, we explore if hosts experimentally adapted to survive infection challenges by a particular bacterial pathogen are also better at surviving infection challenges by novel bacterial pathogens. We found that such hosts can survive infection challenges by multiple novel pathogens, with the expanse of cross-resistance determined by the identity of the native pathogen and sex of the host. Therefore, we demonstrate that cross-resistance can evolve in host populations by virtue of adaptation to a single pathogen. This observation has important ecological consequences, especially in the modern era where spillover of novel pathogens is a common occurrence due to various factors, including climate change.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.hdr7sqvtv
Description of the data and file structure
This file ("Selection_line_cross_resistance_experiment.xlsx") was generated in 2018-19 by Aparajita Singh and others at the Evolutionary Biology Lab, IISER Mohali.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Title of Dataset: "Recurrent evolution of cross-resistance in response to selection for improved post-infection survival in Drosophila melanogaster"
2. Author Information
A. Principal Investigator Contact Information
Name: Prof. N. G. Prasad
Institution: Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali
Address: IISER Mohali, Sector 81, Knowledge City, SAS Nagar, Punjab - 140306, India.
Email: prasad@iisermohali.ac.in
B. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information
Name: Aparajita Singh
Institution: Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali
Address: IISER Mohali, Sector 81, Knowledge City, SAS Nagar, Punjab - 140306, India.
Email: aparajita08@gmail.com
3. Duration of data collection: 2018-19
4. Geographic location of data collection: Mohali, Punjab, India
5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: IISER Mohali, MHRD, Govt. of India; DBT, Govt. of India (Grant No. BT/PR14278/BRB/10/1417/2015).
Files and variables
File: Selection_line_cross_resistance_experiment.xlsx
Description: Note: This file contains five separate tabs:
Tab 1. "key" (description of individual data sheet contents)
Tab 2. "epn_selection_response" (data from response to selection experiment of the EPN selection regime)
Tab 3. "ius_selection_response" (data from response to selection experiment of the IUS selection regime)
Tab 4. "epn_cross_resistance" (data from cross-resistance experiment of the EPN selection regime)
Tab 5. "ius_cross_resistance" (data from cross-resistance experiment of the IUS selection regime)
Code/software
Not applicable
Access information
Other publicly accessible locations of the data:
Data was derived from the following sources:
A. Details of fly populations
EPN selection regime: The EPN selection regime consists of three populations (E, P, and N), each having four blocks (1-4). E populations are subjected to infection with bacteria Enterococcus faecalis every generation; P populations are sham-infected controls; N populations are uninfected controls. Populations within each block (viz. E1, P1, and N1) share a common ancestor. Blocks serve as both evolutionary and experimental/statistical replicates.
# IUS selection regime: The IUS selection regime consists of three populations (I, S, and U), each having four blocks (1-4). I populations are subjected to infection with bacteria Pseudomonas entomophila every generation; S populations are sham-infected controls; U populations are uninfected controls. Populations within each block (viz. I1, S1, and U1) share a common ancestor. Blocks serve as both evolutionary and experimental/statistical replicates.
B. Response to selection experiment
EPN selection regime: Flies from all 12 populations (3 populations X 4 blocks) were randomly distributed into 3 treatments:
a. infected with bacteria Enterococcus faecalis (sample size = 200 males and 200 females),
b. sham-infected (sample size = 100 males and 100 females), and
c. uninfected (sample size = 100 males and 100 females).
Post treatment flies were housed in cages (one cage per population per treatment per block), sexes being housed together.
Mortality was recorded at regular intervals till 96 hours post treatment; flies alive at 96 hours were right censored.
Experient was carried out after 35 generations of forward selection.
# IUS selection regime: Flies from all 12 populations (3 populations X 4 blocks) were randomly distributed into 2 treatments:
a. infected with bacteria Pseudomonas entomophila (sample size = 50 males and 50 females), and
b. sham-infected (sample size = 50 males and 50 females).
Post treatment flies were housed in cages (one cage per population per treatment per block), sexes being housed together.
Mortality was recorded at regular intervals till 96 hours post treatment; flies alive at 96 hours were right censored.
Experiment was carried out after 160 generations of forward selection.
C. Cross-resistance experiment
EPN selection regime: Flies from E and P populations (all four blocks) were randomly distributed into 7 treatments:
a. infected with bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt;sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
b. infected with bacteria Micrococcus luteus (Ml; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
c. infected with bacteria Staphylococcus succinus (Ss; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
d. infected with bacteria Erwinia c. carotovora (Ecc; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
e. infected with bacteria Pseudomonas entomophila (Pe; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
f. infected with bacteria Providencia rettgeri (Pr; sample size = 50 males and 50 females), and
g. sham-infected (sample size = 50 males and 50 females).
Post treatment flies were housed in cages (one cage per population per treatment per block), sexes being housed together.
Mortality was recorded at regular intervals till 96 hours post treatment; flies alive at 96 hours were right censored.
Experient was carried out after 40 generations of forward selection.
# IUS selection regime: Flies from I and S populations (all four blocks) were randomly distributed into 7 treatments:
a. infected with bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt;sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
b. infected with bacteria Micrococcus luteus (Ml; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
c. infected with bacteria Staphylococcus succinus (Ss; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
d. infected with bacteria Enterococcus faecalis (Ef; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
e. infected with bacteria Erwinia c. carotovora (Ecc; sample size = 50 males and 50 females),
f. infected with bacteria Providencia rettgeri (Pr; sample size = 50 males and 50 females), and
g. sham-infected (sample size = 50 males and 50 females).
Post treatment flies were housed in cages (one cage per population per treatment per block), sexes being housed together.
Mortality was recorded at regular intervals till 96 hours post treatment; flies alive at 96 hours were right censored.
Experient was carried out after 160 generations of forward selection.
