Advertisement

Conserving adaptive potential: lessons from Tasmanian devils and their transmissible cancer

  • Paul A. HohenloheEmail author
  • Hamish I. McCallum
  • Menna E. Jones
  • Matthew F. Lawrance
  • Rodrigo K. Hamede
  • Andrew StorferEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Maintenance of adaptive genetic variation has long been a goal of management of natural populations, but only recently have genomic tools allowed identification of specific loci associated with fitness-related traits in species of conservation concern. This raises the possibility of managing for genetic variation directly relevant to specific threats, such as those due to climate change or emerging infectious disease. Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) face the threat of a transmissible cancer, devil facial tumor disease (DFTD), that has decimated wild populations and led to intensive management efforts. Recent discoveries from genomic and modeling studies reveal how natural devil populations are responding to DFTD, and can inform management of both captive and wild devil populations. Notably, recent studies have documented genetic variation for disease-related traits and rapid evolution in response to DFTD, as well as potential mechanisms for disease resistance such as immune response and tumor regression in wild devils. Recent models predict dynamic persistence of devils with or without DFTD under a variety of modeling scenarios, although at much lower population densities than before DFTD emerged, contrary to previous predictions of extinction. As a result, current management that focuses on captive breeding and release for maintaining genome-wide genetic diversity or demographic supplementation of populations could have negative consequences. Translocations of captive devils into wild populations evolving with DFTD can cause outbreeding depression and/or increases in the force of infection and thereby the severity of the epidemic, and we argue that these risks outweigh any benefits of demographic supplementation in wild populations. We also argue that genetic variation at loci associated with DFTD should be monitored in both captive and wild populations, and that as our understanding of DFTD-related genetic variation improves, considering genetic management approaches to target this variation is warranted in developing conservation strategies for Tasmanian devils.

Keywords

Captive breeding Conservation genomics Emerging infectious disease Supplementation Wildlife cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NSF Grant DEB-1316549 and NIH Grant R01-GM126563 as part of the joint NSF-NIH-USDA Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program.

Supplementary material

10592_2019_1157_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (16 kb)
Table S1 List of candidate genes and putative gene functions identified by recent genomic studies of Tasmanian devils and DFTD (Epstein et al. 2016; Hubert et al. 2018; Margres et al. 2018a,b; Wright et al. 2017). Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 16 KB)

References

  1. Bay RA, Harrigan RJ, Underwood VL, Gibbs HL, Smith TB, Ruegg K (2018) Genomic signals of selection predict climate-driven population declines in a migratory bird. Science 359:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeton N, McCallum H (2011) Models predict that culling is not a feasible strategy to prevent extinction of Tasmanian devils from facial tumour disease. J Appl Ecol 48:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown GK, Kreiss A, Lyons AB, Woods GM (2011) Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxic responses in the Tasmanian Devil. PLoS ONE 6:e24475CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown GK, Tovar C, Cooray AA, Kreiss A, Darby J, Murphy JM, Corcoran LM, Bettiol SS, Lyons AB, Woods GM (2016) Mitogen-activated Tasmanian devil blood mononuclear cells kill devil facial tumour disease cells. Immun Cell Biol 94:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brüniche-Olsen A, Burridge CP, Austin JJ, Jones ME (2013) Disease induced changes in gene flow patterns among Tasmanian devil populations. Biol Conserv 165:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brüniche-Olsen A, Jones ME, Austin JJ, Burridge CP, Holland BR (2014) Extensive population decline in the Tasmanian devil predates European settlement and devil facial tumour disease. Biol Lett 10:20140619CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Brüniche-Olsen A, Jones ME, Burridge CP, Murchison EP, Holland BR, Austin JJ (2018) Ancient DNA tracks the mainland extinction and island survival of the Tasmanian devil. J Biogeogr 2014:1–14Google Scholar
  8. CBSG/DPIPWE/ARAZPA (2009) The save the Tasmanian Devil Program: strategic framework for an insurance meta-population. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, HobartGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng Y, Sanderson C, Jones M, Belov K (2012) Low MHC class II diversity in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Immunogenetics 64:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunningham CX, Johnson CN, Barmuta LA, Hollings T, Woehler EJ, Jones ME (2018) Top carnivore decline has cascading effects on scavengers and carrion persistence. Proc R Soc B 285:20181582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DPIPWE (2018) Wild devil recovery project. Tasmanian Government. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/wildlife-management/save-the-tasmanian-devil-program/about-the-program/wild-devil-recovery-project. Accessed 6 Sept 2018
  12. Epstein B, Jones ME, Hamede R et al (2016) Rapid evolutionary response to a transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Nat Commun 7:12684CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquharson KA, Gooley RM, Fox S et al (2018) Are any populations “safe”? Unexpected reproductive decline in a population of Tasmanian devils free of devil facial tumour disease. Wildl Res 45:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferchaud AL, Laporte M, Perrier C, Bernatchez L (2018) Impact of supplementation on deleterious mutation distribution in an exploited salmonid. Evol Appl 11:1053–1065CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Frankham R (2015) Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol 24:2610–2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilpin ME, Soulé ME (1986) Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  17. Gooley R, Hogg CJ, Belov K, Grueber CE (2017) No evidence of inbreeding depression in a Tasmanian devil insurance population despite significant variation in inbreeding. Sci Rep 7:1830CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Grueber CE, Reid-Wainscoat EE, Fox S et al (2017) Increasing generations in captivity is associated with increased vulnerability of Tasmanian devils to vehicle strike following release to the wild. Sci Rep 7:2161CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Grueber CE, Peel E, Wright B, Hogg CJ, Belov K (2018) A Tasmanian devil breeding program to support wild recovery. Reprod Fertil Dev.  https://doi.org/10.1071/RD18152 Google Scholar
  20. Hamede R, Lachish S, Belov K (2012) Reduced effect of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease at the disease front. Conserv Biol 26:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamede RK, McCallum H, Jones M (2013) Biting injuries and transmission of Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease. J Anim Ecol 82:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamede RK, Pearse A-M, Swift K, Barmuta LA, Murchison EP, Jones ME (2015) Transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils: localized lineage replacement and host population response. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20151468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendricks S, Epstein B, Schönfeld B et al (2017) Conservation implications of limited genetic diversity and population structure in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii). Conserv Genet 18:977–982CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoban S, Kelley JL, Lotterhos KE et al (2016) Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions. Am Nat 188:379–397CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogg CJ, Ivy JA, Srb C et al (2015) Influence of genetic provenance and birth origin on productivity of the Tasmanian devil insurance population. Conserv Genet 16:1465–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogg CJ, Lee AV, Srb C, Hibbard C (2017) Metapopulation management of an endangered species with limited genetic diversity in the presence of disease: the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Int Zoo Yearb 51:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hogg CJ, Wright B, Morris KM, Lee AV, Ivy JA, Grueber CE, Belov K (2018) Founder relationships and conservation management: empirical kinships reveal the effect on breeding programmes when founders are assumed to be unrelated. Anim Conserv.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12463 Google Scholar
  28. Hollings T, McCallum H, Kreger K, Mooney N, Jones M (2015) Relaxation of risk-sensitive behaviour of prey following disease-induced decline of an apex predator, the Tasmanian devil. Proc R Soc B 282:20150124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hubert J-N, Zerjal T, Hospital F (2018) Cancer- and behavior-related genes are targeted by selection in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). PLoS ONE 13:e0201838CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Huxtable SJ, Lee DV, Wise P, Save the Devil Program (2015) Metapopulation management of an extreme disease scenario. In: Armstrong DP, Hayward MW, Moro D, Seddon PJ (eds) Advances in reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand Fauna. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 141–154Google Scholar
  31. Johnson WE, Onorato DP, Roelke ME et al (2010) Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329:1641–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones ME, Paetkau D, Geffen E, Mortiz C (2003) Microsatellites for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus laniarius). Mol Ecol Notes 3:277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones ME, Paetkau D, Geffen ELI, Moritz C (2004) Genetic diversity and population structure of Tasmanian devils, the largest marsupial carnivore. Mol Ecol 13:2197–2209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones ME, Jarman PJ, Lees CM (2007) Conservation management of Tasmanian devils in the context of an emerging, extinction-threatening disease: devil facial tumor disease. EcoHealth 4:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones ME, Cockburn A, Hamede R et al (2008) Life-history change in disease-ravaged Tasmanian devil populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:10023–10027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kardos M, Taylor HR, Ellegren H, Luikart G, Allendorf FW (2016) Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild. Evol Appl 9:1205–1218CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Kreiss A, Brown GK, Tovar C, Lyons AB, Woods GM (2015) Evidence for induction of humoral and cytotoxic immune responses against devil facial tumor disease cells in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) immunized with killed cell preparations. Vaccine 33:3016–3025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lachish S, McCallum HI, Mann D, Pukk CE, Jones ME (2010) Evaluation of selective culling of infected individuals to control Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease. Conserv Biol 24:841–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lachish S, Miller KJ, Storfer A, Goldizen AW, Jones ME (2011) Evidence that disease-induced population decline changes genetic structure and alters dispersal patterns in the Tasmanian devil. Heredity 106:172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lande R (1995) Mutation and conservation. Conserv Biol 9:782–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazenby BT, Tobler MW, Brown WE et al (2018) Density trends and demographic signals uncover the long-term impact of transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. J Appl Ecol 55:1368–1379CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Luikart G, Kardos M, Hand BK, Rajora OP, Aitken SN, Hohenlohe PA (2018) Population genomics: advancing understanding of nature. In: Rajora OP (ed) Population genomics: concepts, approaches, and applications. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  43. Margres MJ, Jones M, Epstein B et al (2018a) Large-effect loci affect survival in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) infected with a transmissible cancer. Mol Ecol 27:4189–4199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Margres MJ, Ruiz-Aravena M, Hamede RK et al (2018b) The genomic basis of tumor regression in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii). Genom Biol Evol 10:3012–3025Google Scholar
  45. McCallum H (2008) Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease: lessons for conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCallum H, Jones M (2010) Sins of omission and sins of commission: St Thomas Aquinas and the devil. Aust Zool 35:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCallum H, Jones M, Hawkins C et al (2009) Transmission dynamics of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease may lead to disease-induced extinction. Ecology 90:3379–3392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McLennan EA, Gooley RM, Wise P, Belov K, Hogg CJ, Grueber CE (2018) Pedigree reconstruction using molecular data reveals an early warning sign of gene diversity loss in an island population of Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii). Conserv Genet 19:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller W, Hayes VM, Ratan A et al (2011) Genetic diversity and population structure of the endangered marsupial Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:12348–12353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morris K, Austin JJ, Belov K (2013) Low major histocompatibility complex diversity in the Tasmanian devil predates European settlement and may explain susceptibility to disease epidemics. Biol Lett 9:20120900CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Morris KM, Wright B, Grueber CE, Hogg C, Belov K (2015) Lack of genetic diversity across diverse immune genes in an endangered mammal, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Mol Ecol 24:3860–3872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Murchison EP (2009) Clonally transmissible cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils. Oncogene 27:S19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murchison EP, Tovar C, Hsu A et al (2010) The Tasmanian devil transcriptome reveals Schwann cell origins of a clonally transmissible cancer. Science 327:84–87CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearse AM, Swift K (2006) Allograft theory: transmission of devil facial-tumour disease. Nature 439:549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearse AM, Swift K, Hodson P, Hua B, McCallum H, Pyecroft S, Taylor R, Eldridge MD, Belov K (2012) Evolution in a transmissible cancer: a study of the chromosomal changes in devil facial tumor (DFT) as it spreads through the wild Tasmanian devil population. Cancer Genet 205:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pye R, Hamede R, Siddle HV et al (2016a) Demonstration of immune responses against devil facial tumour disease in wild Tasmanian devils. Biol Lett 12:20160553CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Pye RJ, Pemberton D, Tovar C et al (2016b) A second transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pye R, Patchett A, McLennan E et al (2018) Immunization strategies Producing a humoral igg immune response against Devil Facial Tumor Disease in the Majority of Tasmanian Devils Destined for Wild release. Front Immunol 19:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rellstab C, Gugerli F, Eckert AJ, Hancock AM, Holderegger R (2015) A practical guide to environmental association analysis in landscape genomics. Mol Ecol 24:4348–4370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Russell T, Madsen T, Thomas F, Raven N, Hamede R, Ujvari B (2018) Oncogenesis as a selective force: adaptive evolution in the face of a transmissible cancer. BioEssays 40:1700146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Santure AW, Garant D (2018) Wild GWAS—association mapping in natural populations. Mol Evol Res 18:729–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Siddle HV, Marzec J, Cheng Y, Jones M, Belov K (2010) MHC gene copy number variation in Tasmanian devils: implications for the spread of a contagious cancer. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:2001–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Siddle HV, Kreiss A, Tovar C, Yuen CK, Cheng Y, Belov K, Swift K, Pearse AM, Hamede R, Jones ME, Skjødt K (2013) Reversible epigenetic down-regulation of MHC molecules by devil facial tumour disease illustrates immune escape by a contagious cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:5103–5108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siska V, Eriksson A, Mehlig B, Manica A (2018) A metapopulation model of the spread of the Devil Facial Tumour Disease predicts the long term collapse of its host but not its extinction. arXiv:1806.05449Google Scholar
  65. Soulé ME, Wilcox B (1980) Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  66. Stammnitz MR, Coorens TH, Gori KC (2018) The origins and vulnerabilities of two transmissible cancers in Tasmanian devils. Cancer Cell 33:607–619CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Storfer A, Epstein B, Jones M, Micheletti S, Spear SF, Lachish S, Fox S (2017) Landscape genetics of the Tasmanian devil: implications for spread of an infectious cancer. Conserv Genet 18:1287–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Storfer A, Hohenlohe PA, Margres MJ et al (2018a) The devil is in the details: Genomics of transmissible cancers in Tasmanian devils. PLoS Pathog 14:e1007098CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Storfer A, Patton A, Fraik AK (2018b) Navigating the interface between landscape genetics and landscape genomics. Front Genet 9:68CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Thalmann S, Peck S, Wise P, Potts JM, Clarke J, Richley J (2016) Translocation of a top-order carnivore: tracking the initial survival, spatial movement, home-range establishment and habitat use of Tasmanian devils on Maria Island. Aust Mammal 38:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tovar C, Pye RJ, Kreiss A (2017) Regression of devil facial tumour disease following immunotherapy in immunised Tasmanian devils. Sci Rep 7:43827CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Ujvari B, Pearse AM, Swift K, Hodson P, Hua B, Pyecroft S, Taylor R, Hamede R, Jones M, Belov K, Madsen T (2014) Anthropogenic selection enhances cancer evolution in Tasmanian devil tumours. Evol Appl 7:260–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weeks AR, Sgro CM, Young AG, Frankham R, Mitchell NJ, Miller KA, Byrne M, Coates DJ, Eldridge MD, Sunnucks P, Breed MF (2011) Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective. Evol Appl 4:709–725CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Wells K, Hamede R, Kerlin DH, Storfer A, Hohenlohe PA, Jones ME, McCallum HI (2017) Infection of the fittest: devil facial tumour disease has greatest effect on individuals with highest reproductive output. Ecol Lett 20:770–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wells K, Hamede RK, Jones ME, Hohenlohe PA, Storfer A, McCallum HI (2019) Individual and temporal variation in pathogen load predicts long-term impacts of an emerging infectious disease. Ecology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2613 Google Scholar
  76. Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC, Tallmon DA (2015) Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol Evol 30:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wright B, Morris K, Grueber CE, Willet CE, Gooley R, Hogg CJ, O’Meally D, Hamede R, Jones M, Wade C, Belov K (2015) Development of a SNP-based assay for measuring genetic diversity in the Tasmanian devil insurance population. BMC Genom 16:791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright B, Willet CE, Hamede R, Jones M, Belov K, Wade CM (2017) Variants in the host genome may inhibit tumour growth in devil facial tumours: evidence from genome-wide association. Sci Rep 7:423CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary StudiesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Futures Research InstituteGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  4. 4.School of Biological SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations