Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30967090›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019

Defences against brood parasites from a social immunity perspective.

S C Cotter, D Pincheira-Donoso, R Thorogood

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The coevolutionary biology of brood parasitism: a call for integration.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

S C Cotter1 School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln , Brayford Pool, Lincoln, Lincolnshire LN6 7TS , UK.
D Pincheira-Donoso2 Department of Biosciences, Nottingham Trent University , Clifton Campus, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG1 8NS , UK.
R Thorogood3 Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLIFE), University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Nottingham Trent University · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Parasitic interactions are so ubiquitous that all multicellular organisms have evolved a system of defences to reduce their costs, whether the parasites they encounter are the classic parasites which feed on the individual, or brood parasites which usurp parental care. Many parallels have been drawn between defences deployed against both types of parasite, but typically, while defences against classic parasites have been selected to protect survival, those against brood parasites have been selected to protect the parent's inclusive fitness, suggesting that the selection pressures they impose are fundamentally different. However, there is another class of defences against classic parasites that have specifically been selected to protect an individual's inclusive fitness, known as social immunity. Social immune responses include the anti-parasite defences typically provided for others in kin-structured groups, such as the antifungal secretions produced by termite workers to protect the brood. Defences against brood parasites, therefore, are more closely aligned with social immune responses. Much like social immunity, host defences against brood parasitism are employed by a donor (a parent) for the benefit of one or more recipients (typically kin), and as with social defences against classic parasites, defences have therefore evolved to protect the donor's inclusive fitness, not the survival or ultimately the fitness of individual recipients This can lead to severe conflicts between the different parties, whose interests are not always aligned. Here, we consider defences against brood parasitism in the light of social immunity, at different stages of parasite encounter, addressing where conflicts occur and how they might be resolved. We finish with considering how this approach could help us to address longstanding questions in our understanding of brood parasitism. This article is part of the theme issue 'The coevolutionary biology of brood parasitism: from mechanism to pattern'.

Indexed as

BirdsCuesHost-Parasite InteractionsInsectaRecognition, PsychologySocial BehaviorAnimalsBiological Evolutionbirdcuckoodefencesfishkleptoparasitesocial insect

Identifiers

PMID30967090
PMCPMC6388036
OpenAlexW2914186746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.