4.2 Article

Immune Priming, Fat Reserves, Muscle Mass and Body Weight of the House Cricket is Affected by Diet Composition

期刊

NEOTROPICAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 404-410

出版社

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOC BRASIL
DOI: 10.1007/s13744-016-0391-0

关键词

Carbohydrate; house cricket; immunological priming; protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some insect species are capable of producing an enhanced immune response after a first pathogenic encounter, a process called immune priming. However, whether and how such ability is driven by particular diet components (protein/carbohydrate) have not been explored. Such questions are sound given that, in general, immune response is dietary dependent. We have used adults of the house cricket Acheta domesticus L. (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) and exposed them to the bacteria Serratia marcescens. We first addressed whether survival rate after priming and nonpriming treatments is dietary dependent based on access/no access to proteins and carbohydrates. Second, we investigated how these dietary components affected fat reserves, muscle mass, and body weight, three key traits in insect fitness. Thus, we exposed adult house crickets to either a protein or a carbohydrate diet and measured the three traits. After being provided with protein, primed animals survived longer compared to the other diet treatments. Interestingly, this effect was also sex dependent with primed males having a higher survival than primed females when protein was supplemented. For the second experiment, protein-fed animals had more fat, muscle mass, and body weight than carbohydrate-fed animals. Although we are not aware of the immune component underlying immune priming, our results suggest that its energetic demand for its functioning and/or consequent survival requires a higher demand of protein with respect to carbohydrate. Thus, protein shortage can impair key survival-related traits related to immune and energetic condition. Further studies varying nutrient ratios should verify our results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据