Abstract

Dose–response experiments characterize the relationship between infectious agents and their hosts. These experiments are routinely used to estimate the minimum effective infectious dose for an infectious agent, which is most commonly characterized by the dose at which 50 per cent of challenged hosts become infected—the ID50. In turn, the ID50 is often used to compare between different agents and quantify the effect of treatment regimes. The statistical analysis of dose–response data typically makes the assumption that hosts within a given dose group are independent. For social animals, in particular avian species, hosts are routinely housed together in groups during experimental studies. For experiments with non-infectious agents, this poses no practical or theoretical problems. However, transmission of infectious agents between co-housed animals will modify the observed dose–response relationship with implications for the estimation of the ID50 and the comparison between different agents and treatments. We derive a simple correction to the likelihood for standard dose–response models that allows us to estimate dose–response and transmission parameters simultaneously. We use this model to show that: transmission between co-housed animals reduces the apparent value of the ID50 and increases the variability between replicates leading to a distinctive all-or-nothing response; in terms of the total number of animals used, individual housing is always the most efficient experimental design for ascertaining dose–response relationships; estimates of transmission from previously published experimental data for Campylobacter spp. in chickens suggest that considerable transmission occurred, greatly increasing the uncertainty in the estimates of dose–response parameters reported in the literature. Furthermore, we demonstrate that accounting for transmission in the analysis of dose–response data for Campylobacter spp. challenges our current understanding of the differing response of chickens with respect to host-age and in vivo passage of bacteria. Our findings suggest that the age-dependence of transmissibility between hosts—rather than their susceptibility to colonization—is the mechanism behind the ‘lag-phase’ reported in commercial flocks, which are typically found to be Campylobacter free for the first 14–21 days of life.

Highlights

  • Dose –response studies are an essential method for the risk assessment of infectious agents [1], characterizing the relative infectiousness of different pathogens [2]

  • As a proof of concept for the estimation of transmission from dose – response data, we begin with a re-analysis of a recently published experimental dataset that provides a direct comparison of the suitability of individual and group housing for the characterization of the ID50 for C. jejuni in chickens [14]

  • Day-old chicks were inoculated with C. jejuni RM1221 and housed either individually—in modified rat cages designed to minimize the potential for transmission—or in groups of 10 in standard isolator units with covered flooring to maximize the potential for transmission

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Dose –response studies are an essential method for the risk assessment of infectious agents [1], characterizing the relative infectiousness of different pathogens [2]. The standard interpretation of such dose – response data stems from the analysis of simple mathematical models, which provide a probabilistic— and mechanistic—link between the nature of the Received 7 March 2011 Accepted 21 April 2011. This journal is q 2011 The Royal Society. Theoretical dose – response models are based on the assumption that the individuals within a particular challenge group (at a given dose) are independent For social animals such as poultry, health and welfare regulations recommend that animals are housed in groups for experimental studies wherever possible [3]. If transmission is allowed to occur during a challenge experiment, the final infection status of an individual host is dependent on the applied dose and on the infection status of the rest of the group

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.