4.4 Article

Corticosterone suppresses immune activity in territorial Galapagos marine iguanas during reproduction

期刊

HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 419-429

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.011

关键词

immunocompetence; trade-off; resource allocation; testosterone; corticosterone; iguana; phytohemagglutinin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals that display elaborate sexually selected characters often show reduced immune function. According to the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis, testosterone (T) is responsible for this result as it drives the development and maintenance of sexual characters and causes immunosuppression. But glucocorticoids also have strong influences on immune function and may also be elevated in reproductively active males. Here, we compared immune activity using the phytohemagglutinin (PHA) skin test in three discrete groups of male marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus): territorials, satellites, and bachelors. Males of these three reproductive phenotypes had indistinguishable T concentrations during the height of the breeding season, but their corticosterone (cort) concentrations, body condition and hematocrit were significantly different. Territorial males, the animals with the most elaborate sexual ornaments and behaviors, had lower immune responses and body condition but higher cort concentrations and hematocrit than satellites or bachelors. To test directly cort's immunosuppressive role, we elevated cort by either restraining animals or additionally injecting cort and compared their PHA swelling response with the response of free-roaming animals. Such experimental elevation of cort significantly decreased immune activity in both restrained and cort-injected animals. Our data show that cort can induce immunosuppression, but they do not support the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis in its narrow sense because T concentrations were not related to immunosuppression. (c) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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