4.5 Article

Sex and life history shape the strength of cellular and responses in a wing dimorphic cricket

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue -, Pages 70-76

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2019.04.010

Keywords

Gryllus; Trade-off; Immune function; Lysozyme; Phenoloxidase; Encapsulation

Funding

  1. SIUC new faculty start-up grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immune function is a complex collection of responses that often trade-off with one another and with other life history traits, because of the high costs of mounting and maintaining immune responses. Animals, even those from the same populations, may emphasize different aspects of immune function depending on their habitat and phenotype. For example, host population density mediates the threat from density-dependent parasites. Animals at high densities may emphasize fast-acting humoral responses, while those at low densities may favor slower, but more specific, cellular responses. However, these predictions may be dependent on other life history traits, like sex, which is associated with variation in many immune responses. We used wing dimorphic Gryllus firmus crickets to test humoral responses, measured by lysozyme and phenoloxidase activities, and cellular immune responses, measured by encapsulation, between morphs and sex. We found that both morphs and sexes differed in aspects of immune function. Long wing morphs had stronger encapsulation responses than short winged morphs. Additionally, females exhibited higher PO activity than males, and by contrast, males had higher lysozyme activity than females. Our study suggests that G. firmus morphs prioritize different immune responses that may reflect a balancing between the costs of immunity and differing pathogen threats. Male and female crickets exhibit differences in humoral immune responses that may reflect their different life history demands.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available