Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 12, pp 1917–1923 | Cite as

Female pipefish can detect the immune status of their mates

  • Susanne H. Landis
  • Josefin Sundin
  • Gunilla Rosenqvist
  • Maude Poirier
  • Guro Øistensen Jørgensen
  • Olivia Roth
Original Article


Given the ubiquity of the parasites and their important fitness consequences on mate and offspring condition, selection for the ability to distinguish healthy from parasitized potential mates is a key process to enhance Darwinian fitness. In this study, we experimentally evaluated how the immunological experience of two potential partners influences mate choice, using the sex-role-reversed pipefish Syngnathus typhle. We exposed S. typhle to immune challenges with heat-killed Vibrio bacteria and investigated whether the activation of the immune system determined mate preferences. Our results demonstrate that the immune status of the potential partners influenced female mate preference, such that females that were exposed to an immune challenge became choosy and favored unchallenged males. Males, however, did not show any preferences for female immune status. In this context, we discuss mate choice decisions and behavioral plasticity as a complex result of immune challenge, severity of infection, as well as trans-generational effects.


Mate choice Immune system Plasticity Terminal investment Trans-generational immune priming Syngnathus typhle Vibrio 



Funding for this study was provided by the Volkswagen Foundation and the Future Ocean Excellence Cluster (to SHL and OR), Zoologiska stiftelsen, Inez Johanssons stiftelse and Stiftelsen Lars Hiertas minne (JS), and the Norwegian Research Council (grant number 186163/V40) (GR). We thank R. Höglund and A. Berglund for the field assistance, A. Berglund for providing field equipment, and Ar Research Station for the working facilities. We further thank T.B.H. Reusch, P. Schubert, and two anonymous reviewers for the support and comments on the manuscript.

Ethical note

The experiment was performed according to current national legislation on Animal Welfare under license Dnr S 155-09 from the Swedish Board of Agriculture and the Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (project: “Effects of global change on the immunological interaction of pipefish and their natural bacterial communities”). The research facilities at Ar research station are approved to house and to use research animals (Dnr A10 2012/215 from the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and Dnr C10-2006/570 from the former Swedish animal welfare agency). Everyone involved in the care and handling of the fish had adequate training, including training in biology of research animals, legislation, housing and care of research animals, animal experimental techniques, and ethics.


  1. Addison B, Klasing KC, Robinson WD, Austin SH, Ricklefs RE (2009) Ecological and life-history factors influencing the evolution of maternal antibody allocation: a phylogenetic comparison. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:3979–3987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckers OM, Wagner WE (2013) Parasitoid infestation changes female mating preferences. Anim Behav 85:791–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berglund A (1993) Risky sex-male pipefishes mate at random in the presence of a predator. Anim Behav 46:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986a) Reversed sex roles and parental energy investment in zygotes of two pipefish (Syngnathidae) species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 29:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1986b) Mate choice, fecundity and sexual dimorphism in two pipefish species (Syntnathidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Svensson I (1989) Reproductive success of females limited by males in 2 pipefish species. Am Nat 133:506–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birrer SC, Reusch TBH, Roth O (2012) Salinity change impairs pipefish immune defence. Fish Shellfish Immun 33:1238–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonneaud C, Mazuc J, Chastel O, Westerdahl H, Sorci G (2004) Terminal investment induced by immune challenge and fitness traits associated with major histocompatibility complex in the house sparrow. Evolution 58:2823–2830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boulinier T, Staszewski V (2008) Maternal transfer of antibodies: raising immuno-ecology issues. Trends Ecol Evol 23:282–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowers EK, Smith RA, Hodges CJ et al (2012) Sex-biased terminal investment in offspring induced by maternal immune challenge in the house wren (Troglodytes aedon). Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2891–2898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaine AS, Lyon BE (2008) Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clutton-Brock TH (1984) Reproductive effort and terminal investment in iteroparous animals. Am Nat 123:212–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2006) Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Curr Biol 16:R755–R765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn PO, Bollmer JL, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA (2013) MHC variation is related to a sexually selected ornament, survival, and parasite resistance in common yellowthroats. Evolution 67:679–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Eizaguirre C, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M (2012) Divergent selection on locally adapted major histocompatibility complex immune genes experimentally proven in the field. Ecol Lett 15:723–731PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds—a role for parasites. Science 218:384–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Heins DC (2012) Fecundity compensation in the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus infected by the diphyllobothriidean cestode Schistocephalus solidus. Biol J Linn Soc 106:807–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurd H, Parry G (1991) Metacestode-induced depression of the production of, and response to, sex pheromone in the intermediate host Tenebrio molitor. J Invertebr Pathol 58:82–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Isseroff H, Sylvester PW, Held WA (1986) Effects of Schistosoma mansoni on androgen regulated gene-expression in the mouse. Mol Biochem Parasitol 18:401–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jokela J (2010) Transgenerational immune priming as cryptic parental care. J Anim Ecol 79:305–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A et al (2000) The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (2009) Parasitic castration: the evolution and ecology of body snatchers. Trends Parasitol 25:564–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Madsen T, Ujvari B (2006) MHC class I variation associates with parasite resistance and longevity in tropical pythons. J Evol Biol 19:1973–1978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazzi D (2004) Parasites make male pipefish careless. J Evol Biol 17:519–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore J (2002) Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreau J, Martinaud G, Troussard JP, Zanchi C, Moret Y (2012) Trans-generational immune priming is constrained by the maternal immune response in an insect. Oikos 121:1828–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paczolt KA, Jones AG (2010) Post-copulatory sexual selection and sexual conflict in the evolution of male pregnancy. Nature 464:401–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pasternak AF, Huntingford FA, Crompton DWT (1995) Changes in metabolism and behavior of the fresh-water copepod Cyclops strenuus abyssorum infected with Diphyllobothrium spp. Parasitology 110:395–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfennig KS, Tinsley RC (2002) Different mate preferences by parasitized and unparasitized females potentially reduces sexual selection. J Evol Biol 15:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poulin R (1994) Mate choice decisions by parasitized female upland bullies, Gobiomorphus breviceps. Proc R Soc Lond B 256:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poulin R, Vickery WL (1996) Parasite mediated sexual selection: just how choosy are parasitized females? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing,
  36. Reusch TBH, Aeschlimann P, Häberli MA, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC-polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rolff J (2002) Bateman’s principle and immunity. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolff J (1999) Parasitism increases offspring size in a damselfly: experimental evidence for parasite-mediated maternal effects. Anim Behav 58:1105–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenqvist G, Johansson K (1995) Male avoidance of parasitized females explained by direct benefits in a pipefish. Anim Behav 49:1039–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roth O, Joop G, Eggert H, Hilbert J, Daniel J, Schmid-Hempel P, Kurtz J (2010) Paternally derived immune priming for offspring in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. J Anim Ecol 79:403–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth O, Keller I, Landis SH, Salzburger W, Reusch TBH (2012a) Hosts are ahead in a marine host–parasite coevolutionary arms race: innate immune system adaptation in pipefish Syngnathus typhle against Vibrio phylotypes. Evolution 66:2528–2539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth O, Klein V, Beemelmanns A et al (2012b) Male pregnancy and biparental immune priming. Am Nat 180:802–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Roth O, Scharsack JP, Keller I, Reusch TBH (2011) Bateman’s principle and immunity in a sex-role reversed pipefish. J Evol Biol 24:1410–1420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Roth O, Sundin J, Berglund A, Rosenqvist G, Wegner KM (2014) Male mate choice relies on major histocompatibility complex class I in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. J Evol Biol 27:929–938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadd BM, Kleinlogel Y, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P (2005) Trans-generational immune priming in a social insect. Biol Lett 1:386–388PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sagebakken G, Ahnesjo I, Mobley KB et al (2010) Brooding fathers, not siblings, take up nutrients from embryos. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmid-Hempel P (2003) Variation in immune defence as a question of evolutionary ecology. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sepp T, Karu U, Sild E, Manniste M, Horak P (2011) Effects of carotenoids, immune activation and immune suppression on the intensity of chronic coccidiosis in greenfinches. Exp Parasitol 127:651–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheldon BC, Verhulst S (1996) Ecological immunology: costly parasite defences and trade-offs in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Simmons LW (1994) Courtship role reversal in bush-crickets—another role for parasites. Behav Ecol 5:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stearns SC, Hoekstra R (2005) Evolution, an introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Stunkard HW (1930) The life history of Cryptocotyle lingua (Creplin), with notes on the physiology of the metacercariae. J Morphol 50:143–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wedekind C (1997) The infectivity, growth, and virulence of the cestode Schistocephalus solidus in its first intermediate host, the copepod Macrocyclops albidus. Parasitology 115:317–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wedekind C, Seebecjm T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson K, Cotter SC (2013) Host-parasite interactions and the evolution of immune defense. Adv Stud Behav 45:81–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Worden BD, Parker PG, Pappas PW (2000) Parasites reduce attractiveness and reproductive success in male grain beetles. Anim Behav 59:543–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang SC, Wang ZP, Wang HM (2013) Maternal immunity in fish. Dev Comp Immunol 39:72–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne H. Landis
    • 1
  • Josefin Sundin
    • 2
  • Gunilla Rosenqvist
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Maude Poirier
    • 1
  • Guro Øistensen Jørgensen
    • 3
  • Olivia Roth
    • 1
  1. 1.Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR)Evolutionary Ecology of Marine FishesKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Genetics/Animal EcologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Centre for Biodiversity DynamicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  4. 4.Uppsala University Campus GotlandVisbySweden

Personalised recommendations