Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

The presence of antimicrobial secondary metabolites in nectar suggests that pollinators, which are threatened globally by emergent disease, may benefit from the consumption of nectars rich in these metabolites. We tested whether nicotine, a nectar secondary metabolite common in Solanaceae and Tilia species, is used by parasitized bumblebees as a source of self-medication , using a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments. Caged bees infected with Crithidia bombi had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid and behavioural tests showed that the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine during foraging activity, though nicotine had an appetite-reducing effect overall. When ingested, nicotine delayed the progression of a gut infection in bumblebees by a few days, but dietary nicotine did not clear the infection, and after 10 days the parasite load approached that of control bees. Moreover, when pathogens were exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion, the protozoan's viability was not directly affected, suggesting that anti-parasite effects were relatively weak. Nicotine consumption in a single dose did not impose any cost even in starved bees but the alkaloid had detrimental effects on healthy bees if consistently consumed for weeks. These toxic effects disappeared in infected bees, suggesting that detoxification costs might have been counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely unexplored subtle benefits both for individual bees and their colony.  Potential evidence for self-medication is discussed. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success, remains to be confirmed.D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programm

Social Transfer of Pathogenic Fungus Promotes Active Immunisation in Ant Colonies

Social contact with fungus-exposed ants leads to pathogen transfer to healthy nest-mates, causing low-level infections. These micro-infections promote pathogen-specific immune gene expression and protective immunization of nest-mates

Bats, Bat Flies, and Fungi: Exploring Uncharted Waters

Bats serve as hosts to many lineages of arthropods, of which the blood-sucking bat flies (Nycteribiidae and Streblidae) are the most conspicuous. Bat flies can in turn be parasitized by Laboulbeniales fungi, which are biotrophs of arthropods. This is a second level of parasitism, hyperparasitism, a severely understudied phenomenon. Four genera of Laboulbeniales are known to occur on bat flies, Arthrorhynchus on Nycteribiidae in the Eastern Hemisphere, Dimeromyces on Old World Streblidae, Gloeandromyces on New World Streblidae, and Nycteromyces on Streblidae in both hemispheres. In this chapter, we introduce the different partners of the tripartite interaction and discuss their species diversity, ecology, and patterns of specificity. We cover parasite prevalence of Laboulbeniales fungi on bat flies, climatic effects on parasitism of bat flies, and coevolutionary patterns. One of the most important questions in this tripartite system is whether habitat has an influence on parasitism of bat flies by Laboulbeniales fungi. We hypothesize that habitat disturbance causes parasite prevalence to increase, in line with the “dilution effect.” This can only be resolved based on large, non-biased datasets. To obtain these, we stress the importance of multitrophic field expeditions and international collaborations

Pupal cocoons affect sanitary brood care and limit fungal infections in ant colonies.

BACKGROUND: The brood of ants and other social insects is highly susceptible to pathogens, particularly those that penetrate the soft larval and pupal cuticle. We here test whether the presence of a pupal cocoon, which occurs in some ant species but not in others, affects the sanitary brood care and fungal infection patterns after exposure to the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium brunneum. We use a) a comparative approach analysing four species with either naked or cocooned pupae and b) a within-species analysis of a single ant species, in which both pupal types co-exist in the same colony. RESULTS: We found that the presence of a cocoon did not compromise fungal pathogen detection by the ants and that species with cocooned pupae increased brood grooming after pathogen exposure. All tested ant species further removed brood from their nests, which was predominantly expressed towards larvae and naked pupae treated with the live fungal pathogen. In contrast, cocooned pupae exposed to live fungus were not removed at higher rates than cocooned pupae exposed to dead fungus or a sham control. Consistent with this, exposure to the live fungus caused high numbers of infections and fungal outgrowth in larvae and naked pupae, but not in cocooned pupae. Moreover, the ants consistently removed the brood prior to fungal outgrowth, ensuring a clean brood chamber. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the pupal cocoon has a protective effect against fungal infection, causing an adaptive change in sanitary behaviours by the ants. It further demonstrates that brood removal-originally described for honeybees as "hygienic behaviour"-is a widespread sanitary behaviour in ants, which likely has important implications on disease dynamics in social insect colonies

Destructive disinfection of infected brood prevents systemic disease spread in ant colonies

In social groups, infections have the potential to spread rapidly and cause disease outbreaks. Here, we show that in a social insect, the ant Lasius neglectus, the negative consequences of fungal infections (Metarhizium brunneum) can be mitigated by employing an efficient multicomponent behaviour, termed destructive disinfection, which prevents further spread of the disease through the colony. Ants specifically target infected pupae during the pathogen’s non-contagious incubation period, utilising chemical ‘sickness cues’ emitted by pupae. They then remove the pupal cocoon, perforate its cuticle and administer antimicrobial poison, which enters the body and prevents pathogen replication from the inside out. Like the immune system of a metazoan body that specifically targets and eliminates infected cells, ants destroy infected brood to stop the pathogen completing its lifecycle, thus protecting the rest of the colony. Hence, in an analogous fashion, the same principles of disease defence apply at different levels of biological organisation