Leveraging machine learning to uncover multi-pathogen infection dynamics across co-distributed frog families


Abstract

Background. Amphibians are experiencing substantial declines attributed to emerging pathogens. Efforts to understand what drives patterns of pathogen prevalence and differential responses among species are challenging because numerous factors related to the host, pathogen, and their shared environment can influence infection dynamics. Furthermore, sampling across broad taxonomic and geographic scales to evaluate these factors poses logistical challenges, and interpreting the roles of multiple potentially correlated variables is difficult with traditional statistical approaches. In this study, we leverage frozen tissues stored in natural history collections and machine learning techniques to characterize infection dynamics of three generalist pathogens known to cause mortality in frogs.

Methods. We selected 12 widespread and abundant focal taxa within three ecologically distinct, co-distributed host families (Bufonidae, Hylidae, and Ranidae) and sampled them across the eastern two-thirds of the United States of America. We screened and quantified infection loads via quantitative PCR for three major pathogens: the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), double-stranded viruses in the lineage Ranavirus (Rv), and the alveolate parasite currently referred to as Amphibian Perkinsea (Pr). We then built balanced random forests (RF) models to predict infection status and intensity based on host taxonomy, age, sex, geography, and environmental variables and to assess relative variable importance across pathogens. Lastly, we used one-way analyses to determine directional relationships and significance of identified predictors.

Results. We found approximately 20% of individuals were infected with at least one pathogen (231 single infections and 25 co-infections). The most prevalent pathogen across all taxonomic groups was Bd (16.9%; 95% CI 14.9–19%), followed by Rv (4.38%; 95% CI 3.35–5.7%) and Pr (1.06%; 95% CI 0.618–1.82%). The highest prevalence and intensity were found in the family Ranidae, which represented 74.3% of all infections, including the majority of Rv infection points, and had significantly higher Bd intensities compared to Bufonidae and Hylidae. Host species and environmental variables related to temperature were key predictors identified in RF models, with differences in importance among pathogens and host families. For Bd and Rv, infected individuals were associated with higher latitudes and cooler, more stable temperatures, while Pr showed trends in the opposite direction. We found no significant differences between sexes, but juvenile frogs had higher Rv prevalence and Bd infection intensity compared to adults. Overall, our study highlights the use of machine learning techniques and a broad sampling strategy for identifying important factors related to infection in multi-host, multi-pathogen systems.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.