Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26529021›Full record

ArticleInsects2015

Bacterial Infection Increases Reproductive Investment in Burying Beetles.

Catherine E Reavey, Farley W S Silva, Sheena C Cotter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Gut microbiota in the burying beetle,Ecology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Carry on caring: infected females maintain their parental care despite high mortality.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Catherine E ReaveySchool of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, MBC, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. creavey01@qub.ac.uk.
Farley W S SilvaSchool of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, MBC, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. farleyw@gmail.com.
Sheena C CotterSchool of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, MBC, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK. scotter@lincoln.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Nicrophorus genus lives and breeds in a microbe rich environment. As such, it would be expected that strategies should be in place to counter potentially negative effects of the microbes common to this environment. In this study, we show the response of Nicrophorus vespilloides to the common soil bacterium, Bacillus subtilis. Phenoloxidase (PO) levels are not upregulated in response to the challenge and the bacteria are observed to multiply within the haemolymph of the host. Despite the growth of B. subtilis, survival is not affected, either in virgin or in breeding beetles. Some limit on bacterial growth in the haemolymph does seem to be occurring, suggesting mechanisms of resistance, in addition to tolerance mechanisms. Despite limited detrimental effects on the individual, the challenge by Bacillus subtilis appears to act as a cue to increase reproductive investment. The challenge may indicate a suite of negative environmental conditions that could compromise future breeding opportunities. This could act as a cue to increase parental investment in the current bout.

Indexed as

bacteriaecological immunologyinsectlysozymeNicrophorusparental carephenoloxidasereproductionsurvivaltolerance

Identifiers

PMID26529021
PMCPMC4693179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.