Abstract
Emerging infectious diseases are significant threats to wildlife conservation, yet the impacts of pathogen exposure and infection can vary widely among host species. As such, conservation biologists and disease ecologists have increasingly aimed to understand species‐specific host susceptibility using molecular methods. In particular, comparative gene expression assays have been used to contrast the transcriptomic responses of disease‐resistant and disease‐susceptible hosts to pathogen exposure. This work usually assumes that the gene expression responses of disease‐resistant species will reveal the activation of molecular pathways contributing to host defence. However, results often show that disease‐resistant hosts undergo little gene expression change following pathogen challenge. Here, we discuss the mechanistic implications of these “null” findings and offer methodological suggestions for future molecular studies of wildlife disease. First, we highlight that muted transcriptomic responses with minimal immune system recruitment may indeed be protective for nonsusceptible hosts if they limit immunopathology and promote pathogen tolerance in systems where susceptible hosts suffer from genetic dysregulation. Second, we argue that overly narrow investigation of responses to pathogen exposure may overlook important, constitutively active molecular pathways that underlie species‐specific defences. Finally, we outline alternative study designs and approaches that complement interspecific transcriptomic comparisons, including intraspecific gene expression studies and genomic methods to detect signatures of selection. Collectively, these insights will help ecologists extract maximal information from conservation‐relevant transcriptomic data sets, leading to a deeper understanding of host defences and, ultimately, the implementation of successful conservation interventions.