English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There has been recent interest in understanding trade-offs between immune function and other fitness-related traits. At proximate levels, such trade-offs are presumed to result from the differential allocation of limited energy resources. Whether the costs of immunity are sufficient to necessitate such energy reallocation remains unclear. We tested the metabolic and behavioural response of male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) to the combined effects of thermoregulation and generation of an acute phase response (APR). The APR is the first line of defence against pathogens, and is considered energetically costly. We predicted that at cold temperatures zebra finches would exhibit an attenuated APR when compared with individuals at thermoneutrality. We challenged individuals with bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an immunogenic compound that stimulates an APR. Following LPS injection, we measured changes in food intake, body mass, activity, and resting and total energy expenditure. When challenged with LPS under ad libitum food, individuals at both temperatures decreased food intake and activity, resulting in similar mass loss. In contrast to predicted energetic trade-offs, cold-exposed individuals injected with LPS increased their nocturnal resting energy expenditure more than did individuals held at thermoneutrality, yet paradoxically lost less mass overnight. Although responding to LPS was energetically costly, resulting in a 10% increase in resting expenditure and 16% increase in total expenditure, there were few obvious energetic trade-offs. Our data support recent suggestions that the energetic cost of an immune response may not be the primary mechanism driving trade-offs between immune system function and other fitness-related traits.

Is there an energetic-based trade-off between thermoregulation and the acute phase response in zebra finches?