Lecture 21: Arms Races

Looking at how species interact and how this affects evolution, with special focus on the evolution of
virulence. Why are some pathogens much more lethal than others, and what can we do to promote the
evolution of more benign forms?
Lecture outcomes

-mutualistic, competitive and antagonistic relationships between species, given

'real world' examples
Mutualistic: both species benefits from the interaction. (Plants VS Pollinator) (Plants and Ants)
(Human Vs Crops)
Competitive: When two species compete for the food/water/sunlight. Both species suffer from
this interaction.
Antagonistic: Predator/prey, one species benefits from the presence of the other. The other is
simply the food source. Or the host may die from the interaction.

-examples of Red Queen equilibrium

Red queen equilibrium: Running to keep up.
Cold war: Both side keep Using all the welfare money on Nucs.
Snake and prey: the prey is really toxic, and the snake have enzyme to break down their toxins.
And in the long run, the prey gets more toxic while the snake gets more and more antitoxic cuz
theres a selection pressure on either one of them.

-factors that advantage one side or the other in an evolutionary arms race
Directional Selection: One side has higher fitness than the other in the ecological environment
they live in. (So the one less fit, is eventually gonna get out run and die)

Higher reproductive rate: The one side reproduces faster, will eventually stay ahead at the arms
race since they would also likely evolve faster.

Cooperation: Species of prey may work together. 1 lion vs a bunch of bulls

-meaning of 'life-dinner principle'

One runs for live, another does it for dinner
The amount of selection pressure placed upon the two parties of the interaction is different.
Roadrunner always wins (fighting for her life.)

-difference between prudent-parasite hypothesis and trade-off hypothesis, in

terms of the evolution of virulence
Prudent-parasite hypothesis: parasite does little to none harm to its host would be the most
successful. The food source is secured, no risk of running out of bodies to feed off on.
How do we explain why Ebola or HIVs are so widespread and lethal at the same time?
 Trade-off hypothesis: parasite balance cost and benefits of virulence. The cost would be killing
the host, but the benefits would be the virus has the enough resource to reproduce and to infect
new host individuals.
Its about finding the balance.

-factors that influence the optimal virulence of a given host/parasite relationship

Ecology: (the parasites ecology or the ecology of the host) According to the trade-off
hypothesis, it is not going to be low.
Transmission mode: some parasites require direct contact between mobile hosts, some others
don't need to do so, and they spread through water or air even though if host is immobilized. (So
the one transmits more easily will have higher optimal virulence.)
Host density: higher density of host, more available new host at dispense, so they will not have
any interest to be thinking conservatively and keep the host alive.

-how the way in which a parasite is transmitted may influence its optimal
virulence
The easier a parasite is able to transmit and spread, the more lethal (higher optimal virulence) it
will be.

-costs and benefits of being highly virulent (from the point of view of the
parasite)
Being highly virulent increases the parasites ability to exploit the resource and reproduce resulting
it have a higher fitness.(INCREASE FITNESS)
However, doing so also leads to killing the host, deprived of itself of the food source so the
parasite dies. (DECREASE FITNESS)
Therefore there is a balance that one shall seek.

-why improving equipment for survival does not always translate into 'winning'
an evolutionary arms race

You are wasting energy on competing with others, rather than having sex (reproduce).
Nuff said.