Most species seem to be completely resistant to most pathogens and parasites. This resistance has been called “nonhost resistance” because it is exhibited by species that are considered not to be part of the normal host range of the pathogen. A conceptual model is presented suggesting that failure of infection on nonhosts may be an incidental by-product of pathogen evolution leading to specialization on their source hosts. This model is contrasted with resistance that results from hosts evolving to resist challenge by their pathogens, either as a result of coevolution with a persistent pathogen or as the result of one-sided evolution by the host against pathogens that are not self-sustaining on those hosts. Distinguishing evolved from nonevolved resistance leads to contrasting predictions regarding the relationship between resistance and genetic distance. An analysis of cross-inoculation experiments suggests that the resistance is often the product of pathogen specialization. Understanding the contrasting evolutionary origins of resistance is critical for studies on the genetics and evolution of host–pathogen interactions in human, agricultural, and natural populations. Research on human infectious disease using animal models may often study resistances that have quite contrasting evolutionary origins, and therefore very different underlying genetic mechanisms.

This article reviews research on the evolutionary mechanisms leading to different transmission modes. Such modes are often under genetic control of the host or the pathogen, and often in conflict with each other via trade-offs. Transmission modes may vary among pathogen strains and among host populations. Evolutionary changes in transmission mode have been inferred through experimental and phylogenetic studies, including changes in transmission associated with host shifts and with evolution of the unusually complex life cycles of many parasites. Understanding the forces that determine the evolution of particular transmission modes presents a fascinating medley of problems for which there is a lack of good data and often a lack of conceptual understanding or appropriate methodologies. Our best information comes from studies that have been focused on the vertical versus horizontal transmission dichotomy. With other kinds of transitions, theoretical approaches combining epidemiology and population genetics are providing guidelines for determining when and how rapidly new transmission modes may evolve, but these are still in need of empirical investigation and application to particular cases. Obtaining such knowledge is a matter of urgency in relation to extant disease threats. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Opening the black box: re-examining the ecology and evolution of parasite transmission’.

Many important and rapidly emerging pathogens of humans, livestock and wildlife are ‘vector-borne’. However, the term ‘vector’ has been applied to diverse agents in a broad range of epidemiological systems. In this perspective, we briefly review some common definitions, identify the strengths and weaknesses of each and consider the functional differences between vectors and other hosts from a range of ecological, evolutionary and public health perspectives. We then consider how the use of designations can afford insights into our understanding of epidemiological and evolutionary processes that are not otherwise apparent. We conclude that from a medical and veterinary perspective, a combination of the ‘haematophagous arthropod’ and ‘mobility’ definitions is most useful because it offers important insights into contact structure and control and emphasizes the opportunities for pathogen shifts among taxonomically similar species with similar feeding modes and internal environments. From a population dynamics and evolutionary perspective, we suggest that a combination of the ‘micropredator’ and ‘sequential’ definition is most appropriate because it captures the key aspects of transmission biology and fitness consequences for the pathogen and vector itself. However, we explicitly recognize that the value of a definition always depends on the research question under study. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Opening the black box: re-examining the ecology and evolution of parasite transmission’.

This article overviews the dynamics of disease transmission in one-host–one-parasite systems. Transmission is the result of interacting host and pathogen processes, encapsulated with the environment in a ‘transmission triangle’. Multiple transmission modes and their epidemiological consequences are often not understood because the direct measurement of transmission is difficult. However, its different components can be analysed using nonlinear transmission functions, contact matrices and networks. A particular challenge is to develop such functions for spatially extended systems. This is illustrated for vector transmission where a ‘perception kernel’ approach is developed that incorporates vector behaviour in response to host spacing. A major challenge is understanding the relative merits of the large number of approaches to quantifying transmission. The evolution of transmission mode itself has been a rather neglected topic, but is important in the context of understanding disease emergence and genetic variation in pathogens. Disease impacts many biological processes such as community stability, the evolution of sex and speciation, yet the importance of different transmission modes in these processes is not understood. Broader approaches and ideas to disease transmission are important in the public health realm for combating newly emerging infections. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Opening the black box: re-examining the ecology and evolution of parasite transmission’.

The word "evolution" is rarely used in papers from medical journals describing antimicrobial resistance, which may directly impact public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives.