No abstract

New emerging infectious diseases are identified every year, a subset of which become global pandemics like COVID-19. In the case of COVID-19, many governments have responded to the ongoing pandemic by imposing social policies that restrict contacts outside of the home, resulting in a large fraction of the workforce either working from home or not working. To ensure essential services, however, a substantial number of workers are not subject to these limitations, and maintain many of their pre-intervention contacts. To explore how contacts among such “essential” workers, and between essential workers and the rest of the population, impact disease risk and the effectiveness of pandemic control, we evaluated several mathematical models of essential worker contacts within a standard epidemiology framework. The models were designed to correspond to key characteristics of cashiers, factory employees, and healthcare workers. We find in all three models that essential workers are at substantially elevated risk of infection compared to the rest of the population, as has been documented, and that increasing the numbers of essential workers necessitates the imposition of more stringent controls on contacts among the rest of the population to manage the pandemic. Importantly, however, different archetypes of essential workers differ in both their individual probability of infection and impact on the broader pandemic dynamics, highlighting the need to understand and target intervention for the specific risks faced by different groups of essential workers. These findings, especially in light of the massive human costs of the current COVID-19 pandemic, indicate that contingency plans for future epidemics should account for the impacts of essential workers on disease spread.

We construct a hybrid, stage-structured mathematical model to study whether trapping of the invasive predatory crayfish Procambarus clarkii can prevent local extinctions of the California newt (Taricha torosa), a species of special concern native to Santa Monica Mountain streams. Specifically, we numerically and analytically determine under what conditions trapping can drive the crayfish population size to zero. We observe the persistence or the time to extinction for newt populations under corresponding trapping scenarios. No simulations allow for long-term coexistence of newts and crayfish, although multiple scenarios delay newt extinction by several years in the presence of crayfish. We predict that crayfish extinction and newt persistence become more likely as the quantity of trapping resources, frequency of trapping implementation, and susceptibility of the crayfish population to trapping increases. We quantify the effectiveness of different crayfish trapping regimes at delaying the time until the newt population goes extinct. Predictions made with our model inform restorative efforts and crayfish management.

In human populations, the relative levels of neutral diversity on the X and autosomes differ markedly from each other and from the naïve theoretical expectation of 3/4. Here we propose an explanation for these differences based on new theory about the effects of sex-specific life history and given pedigree-based estimates of the dependence of human mutation rates on sex and age. We demonstrate that life history effects, particularly longer generation times in males than in females, are expected to have had multiple effects on human X-to-autosome (X:A) diversity ratios, as a result of male-biased mutation rates, the equilibrium X:A ratio of effective population sizes, and the differential responses to changes in population size. We also show that the standard approach of using divergence between species to correct for male mutation bias results in biased estimates of X:A effective population size ratios. We obtain alternative estimates using pedigree-based estimates of the male mutation bias, which reveal that X:A ratios of effective population sizes are considerably greater than previously appreciated. Finally, we find that the joint effects of historical changes in life history and population size can explain the observed X:A diversity ratios in extant human populations. Our results suggest that ancestral human populations were highly polygynous, that non-African populations experienced a substantial reduction in polygyny and/or increase in the male-to-female ratio of generation times around the Out-of-Africa bottleneck, and that current diversity levels were affected by fairly recent changes in sex-specific life history.

Mutation rates and spectra differ among human populations. Here, we examine whether this variation could be explained by evolution at mutation modifiers. To this end, we consider genetic modifier sites at which mutations, “mutator alleles”, increase genome-wide mutation rates and model their evolution under purifying selection due to the additional deleterious mutations that they cause, genetic drift, and demographic processes. We solve the model analytically for a constant population size and characterize how evolution at modifier sites impacts variation in mutation rates within and among populations. We then use simulations to study the effects of modifier sites under a plausible demographic model for Africans and Europeans. When comparing populations that evolve independently, weakly selected modifier sites (2Nes ≈ 1), which evolve slowly, contribute the most to variation in mutation rates. In contrast, when populations recently split from a common ancestral population, strongly selected modifier sites (2Nes » 1), which evolve rapidly, contribute the most to variation between them. Moreover, a modest number of modifier sites (e.g., 10 per mutation type in the standard classification into 96 types) subject to moderate to strong selection (2Nes > 1) could account for the variation in mutation rates observed among human populations. If such modifier sites indeed underlie differences among populations, they should also cause variation in mutation rates within populations and their effects should be detectable in pedigree studies.