Fight or learn to live with the consequences?

Individuals can fight their infectious diseases by reducing the growth of a pathogen (resistance), but they can also ameliorate the disease it causes (tolerance). A recent paper shows that there is variation between mouse strains in tolerance to a rodent malaria and that this was negatively correlated with resistance. This is important, because tolerance has major implications for the epidemiology and coevolution of host-parasite interactions, but has been neglected in the animal literature.     

打架还是谈情做爱——Fight or Make Love?

性和暴力是文学艺术、电影永恒的两大主题。这两种截然不同的社会行为虽然非常有趣,但其神经生物学基础一直是个谜。最近加州理工学院的Anderson研究组在小鼠的下丘脑中发现了控制这两种不同行为的神经网络。     

Interleukin-33: Friend or Enemy in the Fight against Tumors?

Molecular Biology - Interleukin-33 (IL-33) belongs to the IL-1 cytokine family and acts as a danger signal. IL-33 is released from stressed or necrotic cells. Initially, IL-33 was described as an...     

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

It is well known that prey of different size and morphology often use different antipredator strategies. The prevailing notion is that this occurs because size, morphology and weaponry determine the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies, and nowhere is this assumption more entrenched than in our view of the basic decision to stay, fight or flee. Here, we use observations of coyote (Canis latrans) packs hunting deer in winter to show that two ungulates of similar size and morphology, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), use different antipredator strategies when encountered or attacked. Mule deer typically responded by holding their ground and aggressively defending conspecifics, and were at high risk of being attacked and killed if they fled or were undefended. White-tails always fled when pursued or attacked by coyotes. Coyotes pursued fewer white-tails than mule deer they encountered regardless of prey response. Once pursued or attacked, white-tails faced a risk of attack and capture, respectively, that was intermediate between the high and low risk mule deer groups. The overall risk of capture per encounter for white-tails was similar to that facing mule deer that confronted coyotes, which was much lower than risk facing mule deer that fled and were undefended. Contextual variables such as the opportunity to improve one's position by joining another group, moving to rugged terrain, or the presence of companions that are willing to provide defense may explain why a mixed strategy is maintained in mule deer, despite the apparently detrimental effects of flight. These examples illustrate the value of including prey behavior in models of hunting success in so far as prey defenses may not be coupled with differences in size and morphology.     

Fight or flight? – Flight increases immune gene expression but does not help to fight an infection

Flight represents a key trait in most insects, being energetically extremely demanding, yet often necessary for foraging and reproduction. Additionally, dispersal via flight is especially important for species living in fragmented landscapes. Even though, based on life‐history theory, a negative relationship may be expected between flight and immunity, a number of previous studies have indicated flight to induce an increased immune response. In this study, we assessed whether induced immunity (i.e. immune gene expression) in response to 15‐min forced flight treatment impacts individual survival of bacterial infection in the Glanville fritillary butterfly (Melitaea cinxia). We were able to confirm previous findings of flight‐induced immune gene expression, but still observed substantially stronger effects on both gene expression levels and life span due to bacterial infection compared to flight treatment. Even though gene expression levels of some immunity‐related genes were elevated due to flight, these individuals did not show increased survival of bacterial infection, indicating that flight‐induced immune activation does not completely protect them from the negative effects of bacterial infection. Finally, an interaction between flight and immune treatment indicated a potential trade‐off: flight treatment increased immune gene expression in naïve individuals only, whereas in infected individuals no increase in immune gene expression was induced by flight. Our results suggest that the up‐regulation of immune genes upon flight is based on a general stress response rather than reflecting an adaptive response to cope with potential infections during flight or in new habitats.