Malaria and ovalocytosis--molecular mimicry?

Two recently published reports have described findings which will have a profound impact on the understanding of molecular mechanisms of human resistance to malaria infection. In Melanesian ovalocytosis, a genetic polymorphism found in Papua New Guinea and parts of South East Asia, the red cells are highly resistant to invasion by various species of malaria parasite. The molecular nature of the defect in ovalocytic erythrocytes was not known. Recent reports by Liu et al. (Liu, S.-C., Zhai, S., Palek, J., Golan, D., Amato, D., Hassan, K., Nurse, G., Babona, D., Coetzer, T., Jarolim, P. Zaik, M. and Borwein, S. (1990) N. Engl. J. Med. 323, 1530-1538.) and Jones et al. (Jones, G.L., Edmundson, H.M., Wesche, D. and Saul, A. (1991) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1096, 33-40.) have now identified the abnormality in the band 3 protein of ovalocytic red cell membranes. A major discovery in the Jones et al. study is the presence of an extended peptide at the N-terminus of ovalocyte band 3 protein. This novel 13 amino acid extended sequence is not found in the primary structure of normal band 3 protein and was suggested to be the cause of band 3 defect in ovalocytes. We have analyzed this extended sequence through Genbank using SWISS-PROT database and found that an almost identical sequence exists in a malaria parasite protein called RESA.     

Learning and memory in mimicry: II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum?

The evolution of mimicry is driven by the behaviour of predators. However, there has been little systematic testing of the sensitivity of evolutionary predictions to variations in assumptions about predator learning and forgetting. To test how robust mimicry theory is to such behavioural modifications we combined sets of rules describing ways in which learning and forgetting might operate in vertebrate predators into 29 computer predator behaviour systems. These systems were applied in simulations of simplified natural mimicry situations, particularly investigating the nature of density-dependence and the benefits and losses conferred by mimicry across a spectrum of payabilities. The classical Batesian-Muellerian spectrum was generated only by two of our 29 predator behaviour systems. Both of these ‘classical predators' had extreme asymptotes of learning and fixed rate, time dependent forgetting. All edible mimics were treated by them as Batesian in that they parasitized their model's protection and had positive monotonic effects of density on model-mimic attack rates. All defended mimics were treated as Muellerian (Mullerian) in that their presence benefited their Model's protection, and showed negative monotonic density effects on attack rates. With the remaining 27 systems Batesian or Muellerian relationships extended beyond their conventional edibility boundaries. In some cases, Muellerian mimicry extended into the edible region of the ‘palatability spectrum’ (we term this quasi-Muellerian mimicry), and in others Batesian mimicry extended into the ‘unpalatable’, defended half of the spectrum (quasi-Batesian mimicry). Although most of the 29 behaviour systems included at least some regions of true Batesian and Muellerian mimicries, if forgetting was triggered by avoidance events (as suggested by J.E. Huheey) rather than by the passage of time then the mimicry spectrum excluded Mullerian mimicry altogether, and was composed of Batesian and quasi-Batesian mimicries. In addition the classical prediction of monotonic density-dependent predation was shown not to be robust against variations in the forgetting algorithm. Time based forgetting which is retarded by observations of prey, or which varies its rate according to the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of a prey generates non-monotonic results. At low mimic densities there is a positive effect on attack rates and at higher densities a negative effect. Overall, the mode of forgetting has a more significant effect on mimetic relationships than the rate of learning. It seems to matter little whether learning and forgetting are switched or gradual functions. Predictions about mimetic evolution are therefore sensitive to assumptions about predator behaviour, though more so to variations in forgetting than learning rate. Based on findings from animal psychology and mimetic populations, we are able to rule out a number of predator behaviour systems. We suggest that the most credible of our 29 predators are those which generate results which incorporate Batesian, quasi-Batesian and Muellerian mimicries across the ‘palatability spectrum’.     

Batesian, quasi-Batesian or Müllerian mimicry? Theory and data in mimicry Research

In this paper I argue that the nature of mimetic relationships remains contentious because there are insufficient data to enable full evaluation of theoretical models. There is, however, a growing appreciation of the need to draw together empirical studies to provide foundations for theoretical work. I review some recent data that considers the responses of predators to changing numbers of defended prey items and the nature of mimicry along a palatability spectrum. A simple model of predator behaviour is constructed which combines assumptions from Pavlovian learning studies with traditional ‘number dependent’ learning models. This model has two important properties. First it shows that Pavlovian assumptions can be represented in a simple model which generates interesting predictions. Second it indicates some areas that still need detailed empirical study – most importantly perhaps is the way that predators respond to prey with different levels of edibility. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

How weird can mimicry get?

Classical mimicry theory distinguishes clearly between the mutualistic resemblance between two or more defended species (muellerian mimicry), and the parasitic resemblance of a palatable species to a defended species (batesian mimicry). Modelling the behaviour of predators, without initially taking ecological complications into account, is a good strategy for exploring whether this division is valid. Two such behavioural models are described: conditioning theory, which simulates changes in motivational attack levels according to the norms of current learning theory; and saturation theory, which considers how a predator may become saturated with a particular toxic compound, and then cease feeding on the prey species that delivers it. This effect is to be clearly distinguished from simple satiation. Most formulations of the conditioning model allow the direction of reinforcement produced by a particular prey to change according the predator's current state of motivation: this leads to the existence of quasi-batesian mimicry, a parasitic mimicry between two species that could both be described as defended. At high densities, two prey species that share a chemical defense will be ‘muellerian mutualists’, mutually protecting each other against predators that have been saturated with the defensive compound. This mutualism may be accompanied by true muellerian mimicry of the colour patterns, or the patterns may be completely different. This can therefore be regarded as a form of mimicry in a non-visual communication channel. Even an apparently palatable prey species may be effectively unavailable to predators if its density is such as to deliver a particular nutrient in excess of the predator's need for a balanced diet. Such a nutrient in effect becomes a toxin, and such an abundant prey species would be partly defended and potentially able to act as the model in a mimicry system. Thus there might be protective mimicry between ‘palatable’ species, and a ‘palatable’ species might even function as the model for a ‘defended’ mimic. These unorthodox kinds of mimicry probably exist transiently during fluctuations of prey populations. It is less likely that these conditions persist for long enough to induce the evolution of mimicry, and the relationships perhaps usually occur when mimicry already exists for other reasons. Mimicry rings may be mutually stabilised by a combination of toxic mutualism and the exchange of species between the rings. Colour polymorphism in a defended species is strictly neutral whenever the population is dense enough to saturate the predator. This, as well as quasi-batesian mimicry, may help to explain the minority of warningly coloured species that are polymorphic. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Malaria and ovalocytosis — molecular mimicry?

Two recently published reports have described findings which will have a profound impact on the understanding of molecular mechanisms of human resistance to malaria infection. In Melanesian ovalocytosis, a genetic polymorphism found in Papua New Guinea and parts of South East Asia, the red cells are highly resistant to invasion by various species of malaria parasite. The molecular nature of the defect in ovalocytic erythrocytes was not known. Recent reports by Liu et al., (Liu, S.-C., Zhai, S., Palek, J., Golan, D., Amato, D., Hassan, K., Nurse, G., Babona, D., Coetzer, T., Jarolim, P. Zaik, M. and Borwein, S. (1990) N. Engl. J. Med. 323, 1530–1538.) and Jones et al. (Jones, G.L., Edmundson, H.M., Wesche, D. and Saul, A. (1991) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1096, 33–40.) have now identified the abnormality in the band 3 protein of ovalocytic red cell membranes. A major discovery in the Jones et al, study is the presence of an extended peptide at the N-terminus of ovalocyte band 3 protein. This novel 13 amino acid extended sequence is not found in the primary structure of normal band 3 protein and was suggested to be the cause of band 3 defect in ovalocytes. We have analyzed this extended sequence through Genbank using SWISS-PROT database and found that an almost identical sequence exists in a malaria parasite protein called RESA.     

Why are there so many mimicry rings? Correlations between habitat,behaviour and mimicry in Heliconius butterflies

In the new world tropics there is an extravagant array of sympatric butterfly mimicry rings. This is puzzling under strictly coevolutionary (Müllerian) mimicry: all unpalatable species should converge as ‘co-mimics' to the same pattern. If mimicry has usually evolved in unpalatable species by one-sided (Batesian) evolution, however, it is easy to see that mimicry rings centred on different models could remain distinct. If mimicry rings were also segregated by habitat, a diversity of mimicry rings could be stabilized. In this paper we report correlations between behaviour and mimicry of nine unpalatable Heliconius species. It is already known that co-mimics fly in similar habitats, and non-mimics fly in different habitats, although there is much overlap. Contrary to a previous report, we find little difference in flight heights of heliconiine mimicry rings; all species fly from ground level to the canopy. However, co-mimics roost at night in similar habitats and at similar heights above the ground, but in different habitats and at different heights from species in other mimicry rings. Heliconius (especially the erato taxonomic group) are renowned for roosting gregariously; and co-mimics roost gregariously with each other more often than with non-mimics. Gregarious roosting is therefore common between species, as well as within species. There are thus strong links between mimicry and behavioural ecology in Heliconius. The paradoxical correlation between nocturnal roosting and visual mimicry is presumably explained by bird predation at dusk when roosts are forming, or at dawn before they have disbanded. Direct evidence of predation is lacking, but there are high rates of disturbance by birds at these times. These results, together with knowledge of the phylogeny of Heliconius, suggest that species from the melpomene-group of Heliconius have radiated to occupy mimetic niches protected by model species in the Ithomiinae and the erato-group of Heliconius. A variety of sympatric mimicry rings is apparently maintained because key models fail to converge, while more rapidly-evolving unpalatable mimics evolve towards the colour patterns of the models. The maintenance of mimetic diversity would be aided by the habitat and behavioural differences between mimicry rings revealed here, provided that different predators are found in different habitats. This explanation for the maintenance of multiple mimicry rings is more plausible for Heliconius mimicry than alternatives based on visual mating constraints, thermal ecology, or camouflage.     

A protective function for aggressive mimicry?

Mimicry often involves a protective element, whereby the risk of predation on mimics is reduced owing to their resemblance to unpalatable models. However, protection from predation has so far seemed unimportant in aggressive mimicry, where mimics are usually predators rather than prey. Here, we demonstrate that bluestriped fangblennies (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos), which are aggressive mimics of juvenile bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus), derive significant protection benefits from their resemblance to cleaner fish. Field observations revealed that mimetic fangblennies were chased by potential victims less often than individuals of a closely related, ecologically and behaviourally similar but non-mimetic species (Plagiotremus tapeinosoma). After attacks, proximity to models protected mimics from retaliation by victims, but the effect of colour similarity was less clear. Both colour resemblance and physical proximity to models thus appear to protect cleaner-fish mimics from aggression by potential and actual victims of their attacks. Our results suggest that the mimicry types observed in nature, which are usually distinguished on the basis of the benefits accrued to mimics, may in fact overlap greatly in the benefits provided.     

Müllerian mimicry in aposematic spiny plants

Müllerian mimicry is common in aposematic animals but till recently, like other aspects of plant aposematism was almost unknown. Many thorny, spiny and prickly plants are considered aposematic because their sharp defensive structures are colorful and conspicuous. Many of these spiny plant species (e.g., cacti and Agave in North American deserts; Aloe, Euphorbia and acacias with white thorns in Africa; spiny plants in Ohio; and spiny members of the Asteraceae in the Mediterranean basin) have overlapping territories, and also similar patterns of conspicuous coloration, and suffer from the evolutionary pressure of grazing by the same large herbivores. I propose that many of these species form Müllerian mimicry rings.Key words: aposematic coloration, defense, evolution, herbivory, müllerian mimicry, spines, thornsAposematic (warning) coloration is a biological phenomenon in which poisonous, dangerous or otherwise unpalatable organisms visually advertise these qualities to other animals. The evolution of aposematic coloration is based on the ability of target enemies to associate the visual signal with the risk, damage or non-profitable handling, and later to avoid such organisms as prey. Typical colors of aposematic animals are yellow, orange, red, purple, black, white or brown and combinations of these.^1–5 Many thorny, spiny and prickly plant species were proposed to be aposematic because their sharp defensive structures are usually colorful (yellow, orange, red, brown, black, white) and/or associated with similar conspicuous coloration.^5–22 Animal spines also have similar conspicuous coloration and were proposed to be aposematic.^1,5,17,23Several authors have proposed that mimicry of various types helps in plant defense, e.g.,^9,24–34 More specifically, Müllerian mimicry was already proposed to exist in several defensive plant signaling systems. The first was for several spiny species with white-variegated leaves.^8,10 The second was for some tree species with red or yellow poisonous autumn leaves.³⁵ The third cases are of a mixture of Müllerian and Batesian mimicry, of thorn auto-mimicry found in many Agave species.⁸Here I propose that many species of visually aposematic spiny plants of the following taxa: (1) Cactaceae, (2) the genus Agave, (3) the genus Aloe, (4) African thorny members of the genus Euphorbia, (5) African acacias with white thorns, (6) spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio, (7) spiny Near Eastern plants with white variegation on their leaves, (8) Near Eastern members of the Asteraceae with yellow spines, form Müllerian mimicry rings of spiny plants.To consider the existence of Müllerian mimicry rings in aposematic organisms, two factors are needed: (1) a similar signal, and (2) an overlapping distribution in respect to the territory of predators in animals, or herbivores in plants. I will show below that for the plant taxa proposed here to form Müllerian mimicry rings, both criteria operate.The accumulating data about the common association of plant defenses by spines with visual conspicuousness, along with the fact that many such species overlap in their habitat, raises the possibility of the broad phenomenon of existence of Müllerian mimicry rings in plants. Even from the limited number of publications proposing visual aposematism in spiny plants, the operation of vegetal Müllerian mimicry rings seems to be obvious. The phenomenon can now be traced to both the Old World (Asia, Africa and Europe) and the New World (North America). The best-studied cases include Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia,⁶ African acacias with white thorns,^12,15 Near Eastern spiny plants with white variegation on their leaves,^7,11 aposematic spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio,¹⁶ and many spiny Mediterranean species of the Asteraceae with yellow spines.²²In the four spiny taxa (Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia) that were the first to be proposed as visually aposematic⁶ there is a very strong morphological similarity. In cacti, there are two types of conspicuousness of spines that are typical of many plant species: (1) colorful spines, and (2) white spots, or white or colorful stripes, associated with spines on the stems. These two types of aposematic coloration also dominate the spine system of Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia. The fact that many species of three of these four spiny taxa (Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia) are also poisonous^36–38 further indicates their potential to form Müllerian mimicry rings.I propose that each of these groups for itself and some of these groups (e.g., Cactaceae and the genus Agave in North America; Aloe, Euphorbia and acacias in east and south Africa) that have overlapping distribution and share at least some of the herbivores, form Müllerian mimicry rings.The first Müllerian mimicry ring is of cacti and Agave that have an overlapping distribution over large areas in North America.^37,39 The large herbivores in North America disappeared not so long ago in evolutionary time scales and seem to have shaped the spiny defense of these plant taxa.⁴⁰The second Müllerian mimicry ring is of the spiny and thorny members of the African genera Aloe, Euphorbia and certain acacias with very conspicuous white thorns, which partly overlap in distribution and share various large mammalian herbivores.^12,15,36,41The third Müllerian mimicry ring is the outcome of the common presence of aposematic coloration in spiny vascular plants of southeastern Ohio,¹⁶ with color patterns in thorns and spines similar to those of Cactaceae and the genera Agave, Aloe and Euphorbia described in Lev-Yadun.⁶The next case of potential operation of Müllerian mimicry ring of spiny plants with overlapping territories that suffer from the same large herbivores, but on a much smaller geographical scale, has recently been proposed for several spiny species with white-variegated leaves,⁷ and later for more than 20 spiny species in the flora of Israel that have white markings associated with their spines.¹¹The last case of a probable Müllerian mimicry ring was described by Ronel et al.²² who while studying the spine system of Near Eastern spiny members of the Asteraceae, found 29 spiny species with yellow spines, and additional such species are expected to occur. Since some of these species and others with yellow spines also grow in southern Europe, it is clear that the same phenomenon is also common there.I conclude that Müllerian mimicry rings seem to be very common in plants, and that it is probable that many other spiny plants that form Müllerian mimicry rings are waiting to be studied. Such defensive rings are probably also formed by poisonous plants that share similar colors or odors.     

Diversity in mimicry: paradox or paradigm?

Visual mimicry is a textbook case of natural selection because it is both intuitively understandable and has repeatedly evolved in a range of organisms: it is the ultimate example of parallel evolution. In many mimetic groups, particularly butterflies, a huge variety of colour patterns has arisen, even in closely related species. There has been much recent controversy over explanations of this variety. Mimicry is today a broad field of evolutionary study; here we discuss the evolution of its diversity in predator-prey systems.     

Cuckoo–hawk mimicry? An experimental test

The similarity between many Old World parasitic cuckoos (Cuculinae) and Accipiter hawks, in size, shape and plumage, has been noted since ancient times. In particular, hawk-like underpart barring is more prevalent in parasitic than in non-parasitic cuckoos. Cuckoo-hawk resemblance may reflect convergent evolution of cryptic plumage that reduces detection by hosts and prey, or evolved mimicry of hawks by parasitic cuckoos, either for protection against hawk attacks or to facilitate brood parasitism by influencing host behaviour. Here, we provide the first evidence that some small birds respond to common cuckoos Cuculus canorus as if they were sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus. Great tits and blue tits were equally alarmed and reduced attendance at feeders during and after the presentation of mounted specimens of common cuckoos and sparrowhawks, but not in response to control presentations of collared doves or teal. Plumage manipulations revealed that the strong alarm response to cuckoos depended on their resemblance to hawks; cuckoos with barred underparts were treated like hawks, while those with unbarred underparts were treated like doves. However, barring was not the only feature inducing alarm because tits showed similarly strong alarm to barred and unbarred hawks, and little alarm to barred doves. These responses of tits, unsuitable as hosts and hence with no history of cuckoo parasitism, suggest that naive small birds can mistake cuckoos for hawks. Thus, any cuckoo-hawk discrimination by host species is likely to be an evolved response to brood parasitism.     

Can experienced birds select for Mullerian mimicry?

Field experiments have shown that avian predators in the wildcan select for similarity of warning signals in aposematic prey(Müllerian mimicry) because a common signal is better protectedthan a signal that is novel and rare. The original theory ofMüllerian mimicry assumes that the mechanism promotingmimicry is predator learning; by sharing a signal, the comimicspecies share the mortality that is due to sampling by inexperiencedpredators. Predation events have not been observed in the wild,and learning experiments with naive bird predators in a laboratoryhave not unambiguously shown a benefit of a uniform signal comparedwith different signals. As predators in the field experimentsare likely to be more experienced compared with previous laboratoryexperiments, we studied selection by experienced predators ona novel imperfect mimic. We trained great tits Parus major toavoid artificial aposematic models and subsequently introducedperfect and imperfect mimics at different frequencies. Birdswith prior experience on the models selected against the imperfectmimics that were at a disadvantage also in a memory test conducteda week after their introduction. Selection against the imperfectmimics was antiapostatic. However, the imperfect mimics alsobenefited from some signal generalization to the models andpossibly gained protection because the birds were familiar withthe alternative cryptic prey that was also present. Our resultssuggest that experienced predators might be more important tothe evolution of mimicry than the learning-based theory assumes.     

Defensive ant,aphid and caterpillar mimicry in plants?

Here we describe three apparently novel types of visual insect mimicry in plants. In the first type, plants of Xanthium trumarium L. have dark spots and flecks that resemble ants (Formicidae) in size and shape in the epidermis of stems, branches and petioles, and plants of Arisarum vulgare Targ.-Tozz. have them on petioles and inflorescence stems. In the second type, the dark anthers of Paspalum paspaloides (Michaux) Scribner (= P. distichum ) are the size, shape and colour of aphids (Homoptera; Aphidoidea) and they sway in the wind like swivelling aphids. Similarly, the stems of Alcea setosa (Boiss.) Alef. are covered with dark flecks that look like aphids. Finally, immature pods of three wild annual legumes ( Lathyrus ochrus (L.) DC.; Pisum fulvum Sm.; Vicia peregrina L.) have conspicuous reddish spots, arranged along the pods, that appears to mimic lepidopteran caterpillars. In one of the species ( V . peregrina ) two different mimicking morphs were found. We propose that these morphological traits may serve as herbivore repellent cues and are part of the defence system of the plants.  © 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2002, 77 , 393–398.     

Why is mimicry in cuckoo eggs sometimes so poor?

I propose that the existence of imperfect adaptations (e.g. egg mimicry) in brood parasites and their hosts (e.g. discrimination abilities) could reflect age-dependent territory and nest-site selection patterns of the host. Studies of various passerines indicate that (1) older breeders tend to occupy nest sites of higher quality than do young birds (ideal despotic distribution resulting from interference competition), (2) nest-site selection affects the risk of parasitism in various habitats, (3) egg recognition in passerines has a strong learning component (therefore naive breeders tend to accept whereas older birds tend to reject parasitic eggs). Because young naive birds, who tend to accept parasitic eggs, usually breed in low-quality areas where they are frequently parasitised, while old experienced birds, who tend to reject parasitic eggs, breed in high-quality areas where they are rarely parasitised, the distribution of acceptors and rejecters with respect to the risk of parasitism is non-random, i.e. populations of some host species may consist of heavily parasitised acceptors and weakly parasitised rejecters. Therefore, the selection pressure exerted by the host on the parasite should be weaker than if brood parasitism was randomly distributed among naive and experienced breeders and affect adaptations such as egg mimicry. This could explain the existence of imperfect adaptations in some brood parasite-host systems.     

Mimetic gain in batesian and Müllerian mimicry

Summary Starting from field investigations and experiments on mimetic butterfly populations a model for two mimetic species is developed. The model comprises various features such as the growth rates and carrying capacities of the two species, their unpalatability to predators, the recruitment and the training of the predators and, most important, the similarity of the two mimetic species. The model ranges from pure Batesian to pure Müllerian mimicry over a spectrum of possible cases. The mimetic gain is introduced as the relative increase in equilibrium density in a mimetic situation as compared to a situation where mimicry is not present. The dependence of this quantity on parameters as growth rate, carrying capacity, unpalatability, and similarity is investigated using numerical methods.     

Testing Müllerian mimicry: an experiment with wild birds

Experiments with wild birds feeding on pastry 'prey' were performed to test competing theories of Müllerian mimicry Conventional theories predict that all resemblances between defended prey will be mutually advantageous and, hence, Müllerian. In contrast, unconventional theories predict that, if there are inequalities in defences between mimetic species, the less well-defended prey may dilute the protection of the better defended species in a quasi-Batesian manner. This unconventional prediction follows from an assumption that birds learn about the edibilities of prey using rules of Pavlovian learning. We report on two experiments, each lasting 40 days, which showed that a moderately defended prey can dilute the protection of a better defended mimic in a quasi-Batesian fashion, but can add protection to a mimic which has the same moderate levels of defence. These results match predictions of unconventional theories of mimicry and go some way to resolving the long-running arguments over the nature of Müllerian mimicry.     

Does bee or wasp mimicry by orchid flowers also deter herbivores?

General visual bee mimicry and specific chemical mimicry by flowers to solitary female bees or wasps are well known in several orchid genera, for example, the Mediterranean genus Ophrys, the Australian genera Cryptostylis and Chiloglottis, and the South-African Disa. This mimicry has been shown to attract solitary male bees or wasps, which are their species-specific pollinators. The visual and chemical signals are considered to be a type of deceptive pollination mechanism based on mimicry for the exploitation of perceptual biases of animals. We propose that in addition to this unique pollination mechanism, these plants exhibit another, rarely mentioned and practically forgotten, non-exclusive function of bee or wasp mimicry (Batesian mimicry). This mimicry may deter large mammalian herbivores, and possibly also insects from the plants and especially from their flowers by a type of visual and olfactory deceptive aposematism. While visiting the flowers, bees and wasps may add a Müllerian effect to this defense. We extend this hypothesis to many other rewarding flowers that are bee or wasp pollinated and propose that abundance of pollinating bees or wasps may deter herbivorous mammals and insects from the plants during their peak flowering season.     

Molecular mimicry and horror autotoxicus: do chlamydial infections elicit autoimmunity?

All species of the order Chlamydiales are obligate intracellular eubacterial pathogens of their various hosts. Two chlamydial species, Chlamydia trachomatis and Chlamydia pneumoniae, are primarily human pathogens, and each is known to cause important diseases. Some strains of C. trachomatis are sexually transmitted and frequently cause severe reproductive problems, primarily in women. Other strains of the organism serve as the aetiological agents for blinding trachoma, still the leading cause of preventable blindness in underdeveloped nations. C. pneumoniae is a respiratory pathogen known to cause community-acquired pneumonia. Importantly, both organisms engender an immunopathogenic response in the human host, and both have been associated with widely diverse, relatively common and currently idiopathic chronic diseases, most of which include an important autoimmune component. In this article, we explore the available experimental data regarding the possible elicitation of autoimmunity in various contexts by chlamydial infection, and we suggest several avenues for research to explore this potentially important issue further.     

Spatial mosaic formation through frequency-dependent selection in Müllerian mimicry complexes

Although contemporary models of Müllerian mimicry have considered the movement of interfacial boundaries between two distinct mimetic forms, and even the possibility of polymorphisms in two patch systems, no model has considered how multiple forms of Müllerian mimics might evolve and be maintained over large geographical areas. A spatially explicit individual-based model for the evolution of Müllerian mimicry is presented, in which two unpalatable species are distributed over discrete cells within a regular lattice. Populations in each cell are capable of genetic drift and experience localized dispersal as well as frequency-dependent selection by predators. When each unpalatable prey species was introduced into a random cell and allowed to spread, then mimicry evolved throughout the system in the form of a spatial mosaic of phenotypes, separated by narrow "hybrid zones". The primary mechanism generating phenotypic diversity was the occasional establishment of new mutant forms in unoccupied cells and their subsequent maintenance (and spread) through frequency-dependent selection. The mean number of discrete clusters of the same morph that formed in the lattice was higher the higher the intensity of predation, and higher the lower the dispersal rate of unpalatable prey. Under certain conditions the hybrid zones moved, in a direction dependent on the curvature of their interfacial boundaries. However, the mimetic mosaics were highly stable when the intensity of predation was high and the rate of prey dispersal was low. Overall, this model highlights how a stable mosaic of different mimetic forms can evolve from a range of starting conditions through a combination of chance effects and localized frequency-dependent selection.