---
res:
  bibo_abstract:
  - "Social insects fight disease using their individual immune systems and the cooperative\r\nsanitary
    behaviors of colony members. These social defenses are well explored against\r\nexternally-infecting
    pathogens, but little is known about defense strategies against\r\ninternally-infecting
    pathogens, such as viruses. Viruses are ubiquitous and in the last decades\r\nit
    has become evident that also many ant species harbor viruses. We present one of
    the first\r\nstudies addressing transmission dynamics and collective disease defenses
    against viruses in\r\nants on a mechanistic level. I successfully established
    an experimental ant host – viral\r\npathogen system as a model for the defense
    strategies used by social insects against internal\r\npathogen infections, as
    outlined in the third chapter. In particular, we studied how garden ants\r\n(Lasius
    neglectus) defend themselves and their colonies against the generalist insect
    virus\r\nCrPV (cricket paralysis virus). We chose microinjections of virus directly
    into the ants’\r\nhemolymph because it allowed us to use a defined exposure dose.
    Here we show that this is a\r\ngood model system, as the virus is replicating
    and thus infecting the host. The ants mount a\r\nclear individual immune response
    against the viral infection, which is characterized by a\r\nspecific siRNA pattern,
    namely siRNAs mapping against the viral genome with a peak of 21\r\nand 22 bp
    long fragments. The onset of this immune response is consistent with the timeline\r\nof
    viral replication that starts already within two days post injection. The disease
    manifests in\r\ndecreased survival over a course of two to three weeks.\r\nRegarding
    group living, we find that infected ants show a strong individual immune response,\r\nbut
    that their course of disease is little affected by nestmate presence, as described
    in chapter\r\nfour. Hence, we do not find social immunity in the context of viral
    infections in ants.\r\nNestmates, however, can contract the virus. Using Drosophila
    S2R+ cells in culture, we\r\nshowed that 94 % of the nestmates contract active
    virus within four days of social contact to\r\nan infected individual. Virus is
    transmitted in low doses, thus not causing disease\r\ntransmission within the
    colony. While virus can be transmitted during short direct contacts,\r\nwe also
    assume transmission from deceased ants and show that the nestmates’ immune\r\nsystem
    gets activated after contracting a low viral dose. We find considerable potential
    for\r\nindirect transmission via the nest space. Virus is shed to the nest, where
    it stays viable for one\r\nweek and is also picked up by other ants. Apart from
    that, we want to underline the potential\r\nof ant poison as antiviral agent.
    We determined that ant poison successfully inactivates CrPV\r\nin vitro. However,
    we found no evidence for effective poison use to sanitize the nest space.\r\nOn
    the other hand, local application of ant poison by oral poison uptake, which is
    part of the\r\nants prophylactic behavioral repertoire, probably contributes to
    keeping the gut of each\r\nindividual sanitized. We hypothesize that oral poison
    uptake might be the reason why we did\r\nnot find viable virus in the trophallactic
    fluid.\r\nThe fifth chapter encompasses preliminary data on potential social immunization.
    However,\r\nour experiments do not confirm an actual survival benefit for the
    nestmates upon pathogen\r\nchallenge under the given experimental settings. Nevertheless,
    we do not want to rule out the\r\npossibility for nestmate immunization, but rather
    emphasize that considering different\r\nexperimental timelines and viral doses
    would provide a multitude of options for follow-up\r\nexperiments.\r\nIn conclusion,
    we find that prophylactic individual behaviors, such as oral poison uptake,\r\nmight
    play a role in preventing viral disease transmission. Compared to colony defense\r\nagainst
    external pathogens, internal pathogen infections require a stronger component
    of\r\nindividual physiological immunity than behavioral social immunity, yet could
    still lead to\r\ncollective protection.@eng"
  bibo_authorlist:
  - foaf_Person:
      foaf_givenName: Anna
      foaf_name: Franschitz, Anna
      foaf_surname: Franschitz
      foaf_workInfoHomepage: http://www.librecat.org/personId=480826C8-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87
  bibo_doi: 10.15479/at:ista:13984
  dct_date: 2023^xs_gYear
  dct_isPartOf:
  - http://id.crossref.org/issn/2663-337X
  - http://id.crossref.org/issn/978-3-99078-034-3
  dct_language: eng
  dct_publisher: Institute of Science and Technology Austria@
  dct_title: Individual and social immunity against viral infections in ants@
...