Search for: All records

Comparative analyses in biology rely on the quality of available data. Methodological differences among studies may introduce variation in results that obscure patterns. In the field of eco-immunology, functional immune assays such as antimicrobial capacity assays are widely used for among-species applications. Sample storage time and animal handling time can influence assay results in some species, but how sample holding time prior to freezing influences assay results is unknown. Sample holding time can vary widely in field studies on wild animals, prompting the need to understand the implications of such variation on assay results. We investigated the hypothesis that sample holding time prior to freezing influences assay results in six species (Leiocephalus carinatus, Iguana iguana, Loxodonta africana, Ceratotherium simum, Columba livia, and Buteo swainsoni) by comparing antibacterial capacity of serum with varying processing times prior to snap-freezing. Blood was collected once from each individual and aliquots were placed on ice and assigned different holding times (0, 30, 60, 180, and 240 min), after which each sample was centrifuged, then serum was separated and snap-frozen on dry ice and stored at −80ºC for 60 days prior to assaying. For each aliquot, we conducted antibacterial capacity assays with serial dilutions of serum inoculated with E. coli and extracted the dilution at 50% antibacterial capacity for analysis. We found a decrease in antibacterial capacity with increased holding time in one of the six species tested (B. swainsoni), driven in part by complete loss of antibacterial capacity in some individuals at the 240-min time point. While the majority of species’ antibacterial capacity were not affected, our results demonstrate the need to conduct pilot assays spanning the anticipated variation in sample holding times to develop appropriate field protocols.

 

Abstract Rates of human-induced environmental change continue increasing with human population size, potentially altering animal physiology and negatively affecting wildlife. Researchers often use glucocorticoid concentrations (hormones that can be associated with stressors) to gauge the impact of anthropogenic factors (e.g. urbanization, noise and light pollution). Yet, no general relationships between human-induced environmental change and glucocorticoids have emerged. Given the number of recent studies reporting baseline and stress-induced corticosterone (the primary glucocorticoid in birds and reptiles) concentrations worldwide, it is now possible to conduct large-scale comparative analyses to test for general associations between disturbance and baseline and stress-induced corticosterone across species. Additionally, we can control for factors that may influence context, such as life history stage, environmental conditions and urban adaptability of a species. Here, we take a phylogenetically informed approach and use data from HormoneBase to test if baseline and stress-induced corticosterone are valid indicators of exposure to human footprint index, human population density, anthropogenic noise and artificial light at night in birds and reptiles. Our results show a negative relationship between anthropogenic noise and baseline corticosterone for birds characterized as urban avoiders. While our results potentially indicate that urban avoiders are more sensitive to noise than other species, overall our study suggests that the relationship between human-induced environmental change and corticosterone varies across species and contexts; we found no general relationship between human impacts and baseline and stress-induced corticosterone in birds, nor baseline corticosterone in reptiles. Therefore, it should not be assumed that high or low levels of exposure to human-induced environmental change are associated with high or low corticosterone levels, respectively, or that closely related species, or even individuals, will respond similarly. Moving forward, measuring alternative physiological traits alongside reproductive success, health and survival may provide context to better understand the potential negative effects of human-induced environmental change.