4.5 Article

IMMUNE DEFENSE IN LEAF-CUTTING ANTS: A CROSS-FOSTERING APPROACH

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages 1791-1799

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01241.x

Keywords

Acromyrmex echinatior; antibacterial activity; cross-fostering; ecological immunology; metapleural gland; Pseudonocardia

Funding

  1. Danish National Research Foundation
  2. Panamanian government
  3. Intra-European Marie Curie fellowship
  4. Volkswagen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To ameliorate the impact of disease, social insects combine individual innate immune defenses with collective social defenses. This implies that there are different levels of selection acting on investment in immunity, each with their own trade-offs. We present the results of a cross-fostering experiment designed to address the influences of genotype and social rearing environment upon individual and social immune defenses. We used a multiply mating leaf-cutting ant, enabling us to test for patriline effects within a colony, as well as cross-colony matriline effects. The worker's father influenced both individual innate immunity (constitutive antibacterial activity) and the size of the metapleural gland, which secretes antimicrobial compounds and functions in individual and social defense, indicating multiple mating could have important consequences for both defense types. However, the primarily social defense, a Pseudonocardia bacteria that helps to control pathogens in the ants' fungus garden, showed a significant colony of origin by rearing environment interaction, whereby ants that acquired the bacteria of a foster colony obtained a less abundant cover of bacteria: one explanation for this pattern would be co-adaptation between host colonies and their vertically transmitted mutualist. These results illustrate the complexity of the selection pressures that affect the expression of multilevel immune defenses.

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