| Literature DB >> 31660257 |
Zoltán Rádai1, Péter Kiss1, Dávid Nagy1, Zoltán Barta1.
Abstract
Although capacity to mount an efficient immune response plays a critical role in individuals' survival, its dynamics across ontogenetic stages is still largely unexplored. Life stage-dependent variation in the encountered diversity and prevalence of parasites were proposed to contribute to stage-dependent changes in immunity, but differences in life history objectives between developmental stages may also lead to stage-specific changes in efficiency of given immune mechanisms. The reason for this is that juveniles and subadults are unable to reproduce, therefore they invest resources mainly into survival, while adults have to partition their resources between survival and reproduction. The general trade-off between somatic maintenance and reproductive effort is expected to impair immune function. Especially so in semelparous organisms that only reproduce once throughout their lifetime, hence they do not face the trade-off between current and future reproduction. We hypothesised that in a semelparous species individuals would be characterised by decreased investment into somatic maintenance after maturation, in order to maximise their reproductive output. Accordingly, we predicted that (1) elements of somatic maintenance, such as immunity, should be relatively weaker in adults in comparison to subadults, and (2) increased reproductive investment in adults should be associated with lower immune efficiency. We quantified two markers of immunity in subadult and adult individuals of the semelparous wolf spider Pardosa agrestis (Westring, 1861), namely bacterial growth inhibition power and bacterial cell wall lytic activity. We found that subadults showed significantly higher cell wall lytic activity than adults, but the two life stages did not differ in their capacity to inhibit bacterial growth. Also, we found weaker immune measures in mated females compared to virgins. Furthermore, in mated females bacterial growth inhibition power was negatively associated with fecundity.Entities:
Keywords: Ecoimmunology; Ecophysiology; Maturation; Physiological costs; Reproduction; Somatic maintenance; Trade-off
Year: 2019 PMID: 31660257 PMCID: PMC6815191 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Immune function across ontogenetic stages.
Box plot visualisation of bacterial growth inhibition (A and B) and cell wall lytic activity (C and D) of females (A and C) and males (B and D) of laboratory-reared spiders (N = 38). Whiskers visualise minimum and maximum ranges, within which boxes represent interquartile range between first and third quartiles; horizontal solid lines show median of the given value distribution; individual circles show outlier values. Asterisks mark significant effect or difference (P ≤ 0.05).
Fixed parameter estimates from the multi-response model on the effect of developmental stage and sex on immune markers.
For categorical predictors (ontogenetic stage and sex) the contrast parameter is presented (i.e., average difference between two contrasted groups; subadult (S) to adult (A) in Stage, female (F) to male (M) in Sex). Asterisks mark significant effect or difference (P ≤ 0.05).
| Response | Predictors | Coefficient | HPDlower | HPDupper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial growth inhibition | Stage (S–A) | 0.27 | −0.30 | 0.86 | 0.304 |
| Sex (F–M) | −0.50 | −1.03 | 0.03 | 0.067 | |
| Growth rate | 0.71 | −5.23 | 6.27 | 0.790 | |
| Cell wall lytic activity | Stage (S–A) | 1.04 | 0.57 | 1.60 | <0.001* |
| Sex (F–M) | −0.17 | −0.66 | 0.33 | 0.489 | |
| Growth rate | 1.46 | −4.41 | 7.12 | 0.620 |
Figure 2Immune function in females.
Box plot visualisation of bacterial growth inhibition power (A and B) and cell wall lytic activity (C and D) of virgin vs. mated females, collected during spring (A and C; n = 108) and late summer (B and D; n = 51). Whiskers visualise minimum and maximum ranges, within which boxes represent interquartile range between first and third quartiles; horizontal solid lines show median of the given value distribution; individual circles show outlier values. Asterisks mark significant effect or difference (P ≤ 0.05).
Contrasts acquired from the multi-response model on the effect of reproductive status and season on females’ immune markers.
In order to make results easier to comprehend and interpret, contrasts for the given group-interactions are presented, instead of individual parameter estimates directly from the fitted model. Asterisks mark significant difference (P ≤ 0.05).
| Response | Contrast | Coefficient | HPDlower | HPDupper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial growth inhibition | 0.51 | 0.11 | 1.22 | 0.030* | |
| 0.60 | 0.13 | 1.24 | 0.019* | ||
| Cell wall lytic activity | −0.16 | −0.52 | 0.45 | 0.759 | |
| 1.24 | 0.64 | 1.88 | <0.001* |
Figure 3Immune function and fecundity.
Association of bacterial growth inhibition (A) and cell wall lytic activity (B) with fecundity in mated females collected in spring (black circles; n = 25) and autumn (blue circles; n = 28). Lines show regression lines from the fitted linear model: solid and dashed lines represent significant (P ≤ 0.05) and non-significant (P > 0.05) associations, respectively.
Fixed parameter estimates from the linear regression model on the association between immune markers and season with fecundity in mated females.
For the predictor variable Season the contrast coefficient is given, representing the difference of spring specimens from late summer specimens. Asterisks mark significant effect (P ≤ 0.05).
| Predictors | Coefficient | SE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial growth inhibition | −4.15 | 1.31 | −3.16 | 0.003* |
| Cell wall lytic activity | −1.67 | 1.15 | −1.45 | 0.153 |
| Season (spring) | 12.79 | 2.36 | 5.41 | <0.001* |