| Literature DB >> 23342064 |
Karin Schneeberger1, Gábor Á Czirják, Christian C Voigt.
Abstract
Ecological and social factors are central in the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases, thus bearing the potential for shaping a species' immune functions. Although previous studies demonstrated a link between social factors and the cellular immune system for captive mammals, it is yet poorly understood how ecological factors are connected with the different branches of the immune system in wild populations. Here, we tested how variation in aspects of the constitutive cellular and humoral immune system of free ranging bats is associated with two ecological factors that likely influence the putative risk of species to become infected by parasites and pathogens: diet and shelter. We found that white blood cell counts of 24 syntopic Neotropical bat species varied with the species' diet and body mass. Bats that included at least partially vertebrates in their diet exhibited the highest white blood cell counts, followed by phytophagous and insectivorous species, which is in agreement with the assumption that the immune system varies with the pathogen transmission risk of a trophic level. The soluble part of the constitutive immune response, assessed by an in vitro bacterial killing assay, decreased with increasing roost permanence. Our results suggest that the ecology is an important factor in the evolution of the immune system in bats and probably also other mammals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23342064 PMCID: PMC3544667 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) for body mass, white blood cell count (WBC) and bacterial killing activity (BKA) of 24 Neotropical bat species.
| Species | Body mass (g) | WCB (cells/visual field) | BKA (%) | Roostcategory | Dietaryniche | ||||||
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM |
| Mean | SEM | ST |
| |||
|
| 56.38 | 2.53 | 11.59 | 2.24 | 13 | 62.31 | 6.52 | 69 | 11 | 2 | Phytophagy |
|
| 73.00 | 0.00 | 13.10 | 0.21 | 2 | 99.66 | 0.00 | 66 | 1 | 1.33 | Phytophagy |
|
| 12.21 | 0.41 | 4.60 | 1.18 | 7 | 54.83 | 7.91 | 70 | 8 | 1 | Phytophagy |
|
| 13.07 | 0.20 | 10.91 | 2.45 | 14 | 85.26 | 3.07 | 71 | 13 | 4.16 | Phytophagy |
|
| 18.14 | 0.58 | 9.89 | 1.95 | 11 | 82.74 | 5.29 | 68 | 12 | 3.91 | Phytophagy |
|
| 16.75 | 0.58 | 9.14 | 2.05 | 10 | 94.58 | 3.34 | 62 | 11 | 4 | Phytophagy |
|
| 39.00 | 0.41 | 14.05 | 1.18 | 2 | 74.44 | 7.91 | 51 | 2 | 4.5 | Carnivory |
|
| 5.40 | 0.06 | 1.11 | 0.36 | 13 | 86.56 | 5.32 | 59 | 11 | 1 | Phytophagy |
|
| 8.00 | 0.54 | 5.78 | 1.89 | 9 | 62.63 | 5.95 | 68 | 9 | 4.5 | Phytophagy |
|
| 7.82 | 0.30 | 3.92 | 1.44 | 5 | 62.57 | 7.62 | 62 | 4 | 4.66 | Phytophagy |
|
| 45.50 | 4.60 | 9.90 | 3.11 | 2 | 86.23 | 0.21 | 65 | 2 | 3 | Insectivory |
|
| 8.40 | 0.07 | 1.45 | 0.04 | 2 | 86.70 | 2.02 | 63 | 2 | 1 | Phytophagy |
|
| 14.50 | 0.00 | 3.90 | 0.00 | 1 | 96.11 | 0.00 | 70 | 1 | 3 | Insectivory |
|
| 7.00 | 0.71 | 1.80 | 0.42 | 2 | 75.49 | 11.56 | 67 | 2 | 3 | Insectivory |
|
| 18.83 | 0.96 | 2.52 | 0.44 | 6 | 94.46 | 2.10 | 52 | 5 | 3 | Insectivory |
|
| 26.50 | 0.00 | 2.50 | 0.00 | 1 | 43.19 | 0.00 | 50 | 1 | 4 | Insectivory |
|
| 5.30 | 0.00 | 2.20 | 0.00 | 1 | 86.77 | 0.00 | 65 | 1 | 2.5 | Insectivory |
|
| 49.07 | 3.09 | 11.21 | 1.62 | 7 | 90.39 | 5.91 | 47 | 7 | 4 | Phytophagy |
|
| 121.13 | 8.31 | 14.53 | 4.40 | 8 | 91.68 | 6.67 | 65 | 5 | 2.6 | Carnivory |
|
| 14.67 | 1.21 | 3.63 | 1.04 | 3 | 93.48 | 1.41 | 57 | 3 | 1 | Phytophagy |
|
| 4.25 | 0.18 | 1.25 | 0.11 | 2 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 43 | 1 | 2 | Insectivory |
|
| 7.89 | 0.06 | 3.35 | 0.52 | 47 | 90.18 | 1.27 | 61 | 40 | 2.37 | Insectivory |
|
| 5.20 | 0.14 | 0.60 | 0.07 | 2 | 87.58 | 5.25 | 63 | 2 | 3.5 | Insectivory |
|
| 36.75 | 2.84 | 12.25 | 3.52 | 4 | 70.34 | 3.28 | 69 | 4 | 3.9 | Carnivory |
White blood cells have been counted on 10 visual fields under 200×magnification with a microscope on a monolayer smear. WBC gives the mean number of cells per visual field. Storage time (ST) of the plasma is given as mean days the samples have been stored at −80°C until assessment of BKA. Diet was drawn from La Val and Rodriguez [37], and species were assigned to three dietary niches: Carnivory (sanguinivorous vampire bat Desmodus rotundus, Trachops cirrhosus who is specialised on frogs, as well as Phyllostomus hastatus, who is omnivorous with a preference for vertebrates [60]), phytophagy (frugivorous and nectarivorous species) and insectivory. Roost category was drawn from Patterson and colleagues [26].
Figure 1Phylogenetic tree of the 24 Neotropical bat species analysed, modified after Jones and colleagues [.
As it is impossible to distinguish between Artibeus watsoni and Artibeus phaeotis in the field, we referred to it as Artibeus watsoni c.f. For statistical analysis, branch lengths were artificially computed as suggested by Grafen, with the length of a branch being the number of descending taxa minus 1 [45].
Figure 2Association between ecological factors and different immune components.
Sizes of circles indicate the sample size of each species. Body mass is positively associated with WBC counts, with large species having the highest number of white blood cells (A). WBC count varies among trophic levels (B): Bats feeding on blood and vertebrates (subsumed as carnivorous species) differ significantly in the number of WBCs from insectivorous species, while there is no significant difference between insectivorous and phytophagous bats and only a trend for a difference between phytophagous and carnivorous species. Roost category is not associated with WBC count (C). BKA is not associated with body mass (D). BKA does not differ between dietary niche (E) but decreases with increasing roost permanence and protection (F).
Association between absolute numbers of different white blood cell types and ecological factors.
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Diet | F2,19 = 1.9 | p = 0.182 | |
|
| |||
| Body mass | F1,19 = 0.03 | t = 0.17 | p = 0.866 |
| Roost | F1,19 = 4.2 | t = 2.0 | p = 0.055 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| Roost | F1,19 = 1.3 | t = −1.8 | p = 0.264 |
| Diet | F2,19 = 2.0 | p = 0.159 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Diet | F2,19 = 0.22 | p = 0.804 | |
|
| |||
| Body mass | F1,19 = 0.81 | t = 0.75 | p = 0.381 |
| Roost | F1,19 = 0.51 | t = −1.4 | p = 0.485 |
|
|
|
| |
Sign of the t-value indicates direction of the correlation. P-values below α = 0.05 are regarded as significant (in bold).