@article{6105, abstract = { Hosts can alter their strategy towards pathogens during their lifetime; that is, they can show phenotypic plasticity in immunity or life history. Immune priming is one such example, where a previous encounter with a pathogen confers enhanced protection upon secondary challenge, resulting in reduced pathogen load (i.e., resistance) and improved host survival. However, an initial encounter might also enhance tolerance, particularly to less virulent opportunistic pathogens that establish persistent infections. In this scenario, individuals are better able to reduce the negative fecundity consequences that result from a high pathogen burden. Finally, previous exposure may also lead to life‐history adjustments, such as terminal investment into reproduction. Using different Drosophila melanogaster host genotypes and two bacterial pathogens, Lactococcus lactis and Pseudomonas entomophila, we tested whether previous exposure results in resistance or tolerance and whether it modifies immune gene expression during an acute‐phase infection (one day post‐challenge). We then asked whether previous pathogen exposure affects chronic‐phase pathogen persistence and longer‐term survival (28 days post‐challenge). We predicted that previous exposure would increase host resistance to an early stage bacterial infection while it might come at a cost to host fecundity tolerance. We reasoned that resistance would be due in part to stronger immune gene expression after challenge. We expected that previous exposure would improve long‐term survival, that it would reduce infection persistence, and we expected to find genetic variation in these responses. We found that previous exposure to P. entomophila weakened host resistance to a second infection independent of genotype and had no effect on immune gene expression. Fecundity tolerance showed genotypic variation but was not influenced by previous exposure. However, L. lactis persisted as a chronic infection, whereas survivors cleared the more pathogenic P. entomophila infection. To our knowledge, this is the first study that addresses host tolerance to bacteria in relation to previous exposure, taking a multi‐faceted approach to address the topic. Our results suggest that previous exposure comes with transient costs to resistance during the early stage of infection in this host–pathogen system and that infection persistence may be bacterium‐specific. }, author = {Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim and Armitage, Sophie A.O.}, issn = {13652656}, journal = {Journal of Animal Ecology}, number = {4}, pages = {566--578}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{A multi-faceted approach testing the effects of previous bacterial exposure on resistance and tolerance}}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2656.12953}, volume = {88}, year = {2019}, } @misc{9806, abstract = {1. Hosts can alter their strategy towards pathogens during their lifetime, i.e., they can show phenotypic plasticity in immunity or life history. Immune priming is one such example, where a previous encounter with a pathogen confers enhanced protection upon secondary challenge, resulting in reduced pathogen load (i.e. resistance) and improved host survival. However, an initial encounter might also enhance tolerance, particularly to less virulent opportunistic pathogens that establish persistent infections. In this scenario, individuals are better able to reduce the negative fitness consequences that result from a high pathogen load. Finally, previous exposure may also lead to life history adjustments, such as terminal investment into reproduction. 2. Using different Drosophila melanogaster host genotypes and two bacterial pathogens, Lactococcus lactis and Pseudomonas entomophila, we tested if previous exposure results in resistance or tolerance and whether it modifies immune gene expression during an acute-phase infection (one day post-challenge). We then asked if previous pathogen exposure affects chronic-phase pathogen persistence and longer-term survival (28 days post-challenge). 3. We predicted that previous exposure would increase host resistance to an early stage bacterial infection while it might come at a cost to host fecundity tolerance. We reasoned that resistance would be due in part to stronger immune gene expression after challenge. We expected that previous exposure would improve long-term survival, that it would reduce infection persistence, and we expected to find genetic variation in these responses. 4. We found that previous exposure to P. entomophila weakened host resistance to a second infection independent of genotype and had no effect on immune gene expression. Fecundity tolerance showed genotypic variation but was not influenced by previous exposure. However, L. lactis persisted as a chronic infection, whereas survivors cleared the more pathogenic P. entomophila infection. 5. To our knowledge, this is the first study that addresses host tolerance to bacteria in relation to previous exposure, taking a multi-faceted approach to address the topic. Our results suggest that previous exposure comes with transient costs to resistance during the early stage of infection in this host-pathogen system and that infection persistence may be bacterium-specific.}, author = {Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim and Armitage, Sophie A.O.}, publisher = {Dryad}, title = {{Data from: A multi-faceted approach testing the effects of previous bacterial exposure on resistance and tolerance}}, doi = {10.5061/dryad.9kj41f0}, year = {2019}, } @inbook{7513, abstract = {Social insects (i.e., ants, termites and the social bees and wasps) protect their colonies from disease using a combination of individual immunity and collectively performed defenses, termed social immunity. The first line of social immune defense is sanitary care, which is performed by colony members to protect their pathogen-exposed nestmates from developing an infection. If sanitary care fails and an infection becomes established, a second line of social immune defense is deployed to stop disease transmission within the colony and to protect the valuable queens, which together with the males are the reproductive individuals of the colony. Insect colonies are separated into these reproductive individuals and the sterile worker force, forming a superorganismal reproductive unit reminiscent of the differentiated germline and soma in a multicellular organism. Ultimately, the social immune response preserves the germline of the superorganism insect colony and increases overall fitness of the colony in case of disease. }, author = {Cremer, Sylvia and Kutzer, Megan}, booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior}, editor = {Choe, Jae}, isbn = {9780128132517}, pages = {747--755}, publisher = {Elsevier}, title = {{Social immunity}}, doi = {10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.90721-0}, year = {2019}, } @article{617, abstract = {Insects are exposed to a variety of potential pathogens in their environment, many of which can severely impact fitness and health. Consequently, hosts have evolved resistance and tolerance strategies to suppress or cope with infections. Hosts utilizing resistance improve fitness by clearing or reducing pathogen loads, and hosts utilizing tolerance reduce harmful fitness effects per pathogen load. To understand variation in, and selective pressures on, resistance and tolerance, we asked to what degree they are shaped by host genetic background, whether plasticity in these responses depends upon dietary environment, and whether there are interactions between these two factors. Females from ten wild-type Drosophila melanogaster genotypes were kept on high- or low-protein (yeast) diets and infected with one of two opportunistic bacterial pathogens, Lactococcus lactis or Pseudomonas entomophila. We measured host resistance as the inverse of bacterial load in the early infection phase. The relationship (slope) between fly fecundity and individual-level bacteria load provided our fecundity tolerance measure. Genotype and dietary yeast determined host fecundity and strongly affected survival after infection with pathogenic P. entomophila. There was considerable genetic variation in host resistance, a commonly found phenomenon resulting from for example varying resistance costs or frequency-dependent selection. Despite this variation and the reproductive cost of higher P. entomophila loads, fecundity tolerance did not vary across genotypes. The absence of genetic variation in tolerance may suggest that at this early infection stage, fecundity tolerance is fixed or that any evolved tolerance mechanisms are not expressed under these infection conditions.}, author = {Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim and Armitage, Sophie}, issn = {1420-9101}, journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology}, number = {1}, pages = {159 -- 171}, publisher = {Wiley}, title = {{Genotype and diet affect resistance, survival, and fecundity but not fecundity tolerance}}, doi = {10.1111/jeb.13211}, volume = {31}, year = {2018}, } @article{618, abstract = {Background: Increasing temperatures are predicted to strongly impact host-parasite interactions, but empirical tests are rare. Host species that are naturally exposed to a broad temperature spectrum offer the possibility to investigate the effects of elevated temperatures on hosts and parasites. Using three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus L., and tapeworms, Schistocephalus solidus (Müller, 1776), originating from a cold and a warm water site of a volcanic lake, we subjected sympatric and allopatric host-parasite combinations to cold and warm conditions in a fully crossed design. We predicted that warm temperatures would promote the development of the parasites, while the hosts might benefit from cooler temperatures. We further expected adaptations to the local temperature and mutual adaptations of local host-parasite pairs. Results: Overall, S. solidus parasites grew faster at warm temperatures and stickleback hosts at cold temperatures. On a finer scale, we observed that parasites were able to exploit their hosts more efficiently at the parasite’s temperature of origin. In contrast, host tolerance towards parasite infection was higher when sticklebacks were infected with parasites at the parasite’s ‘foreign’ temperature. Cold-origin sticklebacks tended to grow faster and parasite infection induced a stronger immune response. Conclusions: Our results suggest that increasing environmental temperatures promote the parasite rather than the host and that host tolerance is dependent on the interaction between parasite infection and temperature. Sticklebacks might use tolerance mechanisms towards parasite infection in combination with their high plasticity towards temperature changes to cope with increasing parasite infection pressures and rising temperatures.}, author = {Franke, Frederik and Armitage, Sophie and Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim and Scharsack, Jörn}, issn = {17563305}, journal = {Parasites & Vectors}, number = {252}, publisher = {BioMed Central}, title = {{Environmental temperature variation influences fitness trade-offs in a fish-tapeworm association }}, doi = {10.1186/s13071-017-2192-7}, volume = {10}, year = {2017}, } @article{558, abstract = {Immune specificity is the degree to which a host’s immune system discriminates among various pathogens or antigenic variants. Vertebrate immune memory is highly specific due to antibody responses. On the other hand, some invertebrates show immune priming, i.e. improved survival after secondary exposure to a previously encountered pathogen. Until now, specificity of priming has only been demonstrated via the septic infection route or when live pathogens were used for priming. Therefore, we tested for specificity in the oral priming route in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. For priming, we used pathogen-free supernatants derived from three different strains of the entomopathogen, Bacillus thuringiensis, which express different Cry toxin variants known for their toxicity against this beetle. Subsequent exposure to the infective spores showed that oral priming was specific for two naturally occurring strains, while a third engineered strain did not induce any priming effect. Our data demonstrate that oral immune priming with a non-infectious bacterial agent can be specific, but the priming effect is not universal across all bacterial strains.}, author = {Futo, Momir and Sell, Marie and Kutzer, Megan and Kurtz, Joachim}, issn = {1744-9561}, journal = {Biology Letters}, number = {12}, publisher = {The Royal Society}, title = {{Specificity of oral immune priming in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum}}, doi = {10.1098/rsbl.2017.0632}, volume = {13}, year = {2017}, }