Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?

Behavioural evidence for self-medication in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73" }, "headline": "Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?", "datePublished": "2015-03-19T15:38:04", "dateModified": "2015-10-29T15:17:39", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "David Baracchi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mark J. F. Brown" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Lars Chittka" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "The presence of antimicrobial secondary metabolites in nectar suggests that pollinators, which are threatened globally by emergent disease, may benefit from the consumption of nectars rich in these metabolites. We tested whether nicotine, a nectar secondary metabolite common in Solanaceae and Tilia species, is used by parasitized bumblebees as a source of self-medication, using a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments. Caged bees infected with Crithidia bombi had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid and behavioural tests showed that the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine during foraging activity, though nicotine had an appetite-reducing effect overall. When ingested, nicotine delayed the progression of a gut infection in bumblebees by a few days, but dietary nicotine did not clear the infection, and after 10 days the parasite load approached that of control bees. Moreover, when pathogens were exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion, the protozoan’s viability was not directly affected, suggesting that anti-parasite effects were relatively weak. Nicotine consumption in a single dose did not impose any cost even in starved bees but the alkaloid had detrimental effects on healthy bees if consistently consumed for weeks. These toxic effects disappeared in infected bees, suggesting that detoxification costs might have been counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely unexplored subtle benefits both for individual bees and their colony. Potential evidence for self-medication is discussed. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success, remains to be confirmed." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73", "name": "Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?" } } ] } Home Browse Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] Previously titled: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees David Baracchi 1 , Mark J. F. Brown 2 , Lars Chittka 1 David Baracchi 1 , Mark J. F. Brown 2 , Lars Chittka 1 PUBLISHED 29 Oct 2015 Author details Author details 1 Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 2 School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway. Abstract The presence of antimicrobial secondary metabolites in nectar suggests that pollinators, which are threatened globally by emergent disease, may benefit from the consumption of nectars rich in these metabolites. We tested whether nicotine, a nectar secondary metabolite common in Solanaceae and Tilia species, is used by parasitized bumblebees as a source of self-medication , using a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments. Caged bees infected with Crithidia bombi had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid and behavioural tests showed that the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine during foraging activity, though nicotine had an appetite-reducing effect overall. When ingested, nicotine delayed the progression of a gut infection in bumblebees by a few days, but dietary nicotine did not clear the infection, and after 10 days the parasite load approached that of control bees. Moreover, when pathogens were exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion, the protozoan’s viability was not directly affected, suggesting that anti-parasite effects were relatively weak. Nicotine consumption in a single dose did not impose any cost even in starved bees but the alkaloid had detrimental effects on healthy bees if consistently consumed for weeks. These toxic effects disappeared in infected bees, suggesting that detoxification costs might have been counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely unexplored subtle benefits both for individual bees and their colony. Potential evidence for self-medication is discussed. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success, remains to be confirmed. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Bombus terrestris, Crithidia bombi, foraging, nicotine, pathogens, pollinators, pollinator-plant interactions, secondary metabolites Corresponding Author(s) David Baracchi ( [email protected] ) Mark J. F. Brown ( [email protected] ) Lars Chittka ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: David Baracchi, Mark J. F. Brown, Lars Chittka Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2015 Baracchi D et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). How to cite: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3 ) First published: 19 Mar 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.1 ) Latest published: 29 Oct 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 We have included additional details regarding the nicotine used in this study including its chirality. We have included additional details regarding the nicotine used in this study including its chirality. See the authors' detailed response to the review by James D. Thomson See the authors' detailed response to the review by Michael Simone-Finstrom See the authors' detailed response to the review by Marla Spivak READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Parasites can have a dramatic impact on their hosts, and consequently provide a powerful selective force for host defence mechanisms. Molecular mechanisms (e.g. the innate and adaptive immune system) are traditionally considered the major anti-parasite defences in the animal kingdom. However, hosts can rely on a range of alternative defence mechanisms, such as morphological barriers ( St Leger, 1991 ), changes in life-history traits ( Michalakis, 2009 ), symbiont-mediated defences ( Oliver et al. , 2010 ) and altered behaviours ( de Roode & Lefèvre, 2012 ; Moore, 2002 ). Behavioural immunity is an important modality of defence against diseases ( de Roode & Lefèvre, 2012 ), and medication behaviour is a key immune mechanism in some animals ( Clayton & Wolfe, 1993 ; de Roode et al. , 2013 ). Medication behaviour has been defined as the selective use of anti-pathogenic substances by infected individuals ( Lozano, 1998 ; Singer et al. , 2009 ), with a measurable benefit to host fitness and negative effects on the pathogen ( Abbott, 2014 ; Clayton & Wolfe, 1993 ; Singer et al. , 2009 ). As an additional criterion to support the notion that the substance is only of value as medication, it has been proposed that healthy individuals must suffer a cost when consuming it ( Abbott, 2014 ). Evidence for self-medication in animals comes from the consumption of curative plants by vertebrates ( Rodriguez & Wrangham, 1993 ). Many plants contain metabolites that display a wide range of biological activities ( Cowan, 1999 ) which were originally evolved to combat herbivores or plant-parasites ( Hadacek, 2002 ). Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, modify their diet to include particular plant species containing medicinal substances to cure helminth infections ( Mooney & Agrawal, 2008 ; Wrangham, 1995 ). There are also experimental explorations of self-medication in insects, for example two species of woolly bear caterpillars, which increase their preference for pyrrolizidine alkaloids or iridoid glycosides when parasitized, improving their chances of surviving parasitoid infection ( Bernays & Singer, 2005 ; Singer et al. , 2009 ; Smilanich et al. , 2011 ). Similarly, fruit fly larvae infected by parasitoid wasp larvae preferentially consumed high-ethanol fly food as a medicine, again increasing their survival ( Milan et al. , 2012 ), while no evidence for self-medication to nematode parasitism has been found in the fly Drosophila putrida ( Debban & Dyer, 2013 ). Trans-generational medication, but not self-medication, has been described in the monarch butterfly ( Lefevre et al. , 2010 ) and self-medication has been hypothesized for honeybees that increase plant resin collection in response to a fungal infection ( Simone-Finstrom & Spivak, 2012 ). Finally, ants apply antimicrobial venomous secretion to the cuticle of contaminated larvae to medicate their brood ( Tragust et al. , 2013 ). Animal societies arguably face intense pressure from pathogens, because of the high number of individuals living in high densities, relatively low genetic variability, and the relatively constant, high levels of humidity and warm temperatures within their nests ( Schmid-Hempel, 1998 ). In addition, social pollinators, such as bumblebees and honeybees, are often exposed to an increased risk of infection via flowers (reviewed in McArt et al. , 2014 ), which represent a shared “public place” where homo- and hetero-colonial conspecifics and other heterospecific pollinators feed repeatedly every day. Given the potential importance of parasites and disease in driving declines of managed honeybees ( de Miranda & Genersch, 2010 ; Rosenkranz et al. , 2010 ) and wild bumblebees ( Cameron et al. , 2011 ; Fürst et al. , 2014 ; Schmid-Hempel et al. , 2014 ; McMahon et al. , 2015 ), understanding the potential relevance of pharmacophagy to social pollinators may be a key to understanding and managing these declines. Here we use an important natural and managed pollinator, the bumblebee Bombus terrestris , and its parasite Crithidia bombi to investigate the potential for pharmacophagy in social pollinators. C. bombi , a trypanosome gut parasite, is the most prevalent parasite of bumblebees ( Shykoff & Schmid-Hempel, 1991 ). The parasite, transmitted either vertically or horizontally ( Durrer & Schmid-Hempel, 1994 ; Otterstatter & Thomson, 2007 ), infects adults per os, and two-three days post infection, infective cells are released through the faeces of bees ( Schmid-Hempel & Schmid-Hempel, 1993 ). Queens infected by C. bombi have a reduced success in colony founding ( Brown et al. , 2003 ), and produce fewer reproductive offspring ( Brown et al. , 2003 ), while infected workers experience a higher mortality rate under stressful conditions ( Brown et al. , 2000 ). Moreover, infection impairs foraging success and learning abilities, inducing additional costs to the colony ( Alghamdi et al. , 2008 ; Gegear et al. , 2006 ). Recent research ( Manson et al. , 2010 ; Richardson et al. , 2015 ) has shown that several secondary metabolites such as alkaloids (including nicotine) and glycosides, reduce the C. bombi load after consumption by the bumblebee species Bombus impatiens , suggesting that these pollinators might exploit nectar toxins or other metabolites to self-medicate. To test whether bumblebees are able to self-medicate using naturally occurring nectar secondary metabolites we conducted a series of toxicological, microbiological and behavioural experiments using a different species of Bombus ( B. terrestris ) and C. bombi as models and nicotine as a natural nectar alkaloid. Nicotine is encountered by pollinators at variable concentrations between 0.1 ng/μl and 3 ng/μl in floral nectar of Nicotiana species (native of South America and naturalised worldwide by humans) and Tilia species (native in most of the temperate Northern Hemisphere) ( Detzel & Wink, 1993 ; Naef et al. , 2004 ; Tadmor-Melamed et al. , 2004 ). Methods Insects, pathogens and compounds All experiments were performed with worker bumblebees ( B. terrestris ) obtained from a continuous rearing program (provided by Koppert B.V., The Netherlands) and conducted under standardized laboratory conditions. The insects were provided ad libitum with commercial pollen (provided by Koppert B.V., The Netherlands) and 30% sucrose solution as protein source and energy respectively. The parasites (the protozoan flagellates C. bombi ) that we used for the experimental infections stemmed from several naturally infected colonies that were laboratory-raised from infected queens. (-)-Nicotine hemisulphate salt (≥95% (TLC), ~40% (w/v) in H 2 O (based on free base); N1019 Sigma) was used in all experiments. Infection experiments To determine whether the nectar alkaloid nicotine influences the severity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees, we designed two experiments following Manson et al. (2010) . In the “Continuous Exposure” test, subjects were first inoculated with C. bombi and subsequently fed on a daily supply of nicotine solution or sucrose solution (Control), mimicking the continuous exposure to nectar constituents by a bumblebee worker. In the “Delayed Exposure” test, we first exposed directly C. bombi cells to nicotine or control solutions for two hours before inoculating bees, and then we fed them on a sucrose-only solution. We subsequently compared the parasite load in inoculated bumblebees. We collected faeces from 30 workers from three infected colonies, in order to generate a mix of different parasite strains. The faeces were mixed for one minute with a vortex mixer and the C. bombi cocktail was left to stand at room temperature for two hours. Following this, the supernatant was removed and thoroughly mixed. Cell counts were made using a haemocytometer. Following Manson et al. (2010) , faeces were mixed with sucrose solution, generating an inoculum concentration of 2,000 parasite cells/μl. Before inoculation, bees were not given any nutrition for two hours to facilitate infection. Bees derived from two different healthy colonies were screened to ensure that they were free of parasites. Bees were individually presented with a 10 μl droplet of inoculum. We observed foragers until the inoculum was consumed in its entirety. Each bee thus ingested approximately 20,000 parasite cells. This value is within the range of C. bombi cells present in the faeces of infected workers ( Logan et al. , 2005 ), thus mimicking a realistic infection level for transmission to healthy bees. Post inoculation, in the “Continuous Exposure” test, bees from three colonies were kept individually in Petri dishes and either given a 0.5 ml solution of 2.5 ng/μl nicotine (nectar concentration in the natural range of this alkaloid) in 30% sucrose solution (Experimental bees, n = 20) or 0.5 ml of plain 30% sucrose solution (Control bees, n = 20) every day for 10 days. All bees were given a 1g pollen ball every day. In the “Delayed Exposure” test, the C. bombi inoculum was exposed to nicotine in the dark for two hours before the mixture was offered to bees for ingestion. This mimics a direct exposure of the pathogen to nicotine-laced nectar in a flower. C. bombi cells were placed in a solution of 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose (Experimental treatment), and in a solution of 30% sucrose only (Control treatment). Two hours later, 20 Experimental bees and 20 Control bees were inoculated (for inoculum preparation see above). The treatment emulates a situation where Crithidia cells are deposited on a flower by infected bees and the flower is then visited by a healthy bee. Post inoculation, bees of both groups were kept individually in Petri dishes. They were provided with a fresh pollen ball and 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution every day. Infection levels were determined 7 and 10 days after inoculation (the period of time in which parasite load peaks and plateaus ( Schmid-Hempel & Schmid-Hempel, 1993 )). Each bee was removed from its Petri dish and put into a small glass tube until it defecated. In some individual bees, too little rectal fluid was available after the initial screen; in such cases, we repeated the procedure some hours later. Faeces were transferred to a haemocytometer to count the number of parasite cells. Laboratory toxicity bioassays In order to determine the impact of nicotine consumption on bumblebee survival and any possible interactive effects of dietary toxin consumption and physiological stress (for which we used starvation, as Crithidia has its biggest detrimental impacts on starved bees ( Brown et al. , 2000 )), we exposed bumblebees to artificial nectars with or without nicotine, and then kept them under starvation or with ad libitum food conditions. “Starved bees” were moved individually from their nest into Petri dishes, starved for two hours and fed either with ad libitum 30% sucrose solution food for 30 minutes (Starved, Control) or 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose (Starved, Nicotine). Survival censuses were conducted every hour until all bees were dead. “ Ad libitum food bees” were kept individually in Petri dishes, and provided, every day, with 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution plus a fresh pollen ball (Control ad libitum food), 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution and, again, a fresh pollen ball (Nicotine ad libitum food), 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution on day 0 and 0.5 ml of 30% sucrose solution (Nicotine-once ad libitum food) and a fresh pollen ball on a daily basis ( Manson et al. , 2010 ). Survival censuses were conducted daily until all bees had died. For each of the five treatments we chose bees from three different young healthy colonies and we randomised bees across treatment groups. Each treatment group was composed of 60 bees (20 bees per colony). Comparisons of the survival parameters of bumblebees in all treatments allowed us to evaluate the effect of nicotine, starvation, and colony membership on survival. We checked for dead bees twice daily and thus such individuals could be weighed within 12h of their death using a microscale (Navigator N30330, Ohaus, Pine Brook, USA). Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine To evaluate whether infected bees benefit from the consumption of nicotine in terms of survival and/or parasite load, we conducted two additional experiments in which infected bumblebees received artificial nectars enriched with nicotine or not and were maintained either starved (three groups of 30 bees, 10 bees from three different colonies, 90 bees in total) or provided with ad libitum food (three groups of 45 bees, 15 bees from three different colonies, 135 bees in total). In both experiments the three groups of bees were inoculated with C. bombi as described above and individually kept in Petri dishes under three types of diet (each diet consisted of two solutions dispensed by two different Eppendorf tubes): Control Group: 30% sucrose only in both dispensers (Suc-Suc group); Exp. Group 1: 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose in both dispensers (Nic-Nic group); Exp. Group 2: 30% sucrose only in one dispenser and 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose in the other one (Suc-Nic group). “Starved bees” were fed for 12 days and then starved until all bees were dead. The infection levels were checked on days 7 and 10 after inoculation. Survival censuses were conducted every hour (starved bees) and every day ( ad libitum food bees) until all bees were dead. At the end of the experiment we quantified total consumption of artificial nectars in each dispenser for each bee. Comparison of the survival parameters of bumblebees in all treatments enabled us to quantify the effect of nicotine and starvation on survival. Behavioural test For testing, each bee colony was housed in a wooden nest box (28 × 20 × 11 cm) connected to a wooden flight arena with a transparent, UV-transmitting Plexiglas lid (120 × 100 × 35 cm), by means of a transparent Plexiglas tube. Shutters along the length of this tube enabled control of the traffic of bees between nest boxes and flight arena ( Chittka, 1998 ). Each bumblebee was individually marked with a coloured numbered disk. Bees were pre-trained to forage on 12 square transparent plastic flowers of 24 × 24 mm (Perspex ® Neutral) organized in two patches equidistant from the entrance of the nest. Plastic chips were placed on vertical transparent glass cylinders to raise them above the green floor of the flight arena. During the pre-training all flowers were rewarding with a 15 μl droplet of 30% sucrose solution, placed in a well in the centre of the flower ( Raine & Chittka, 2008 ). This provided bees with an equal chance to associate both these patches (left and right) with reward during the pre-training period. Bees were allowed to forage freely on these flowers which were refilled as soon as the bees moved on a different artificial flower. In this way bees never experienced an empty flower with the exception of the last visited one. The number of foraging trips (bouts) made in the flight arena by each bee was observed to ensure only strongly motivated foragers visiting both patches (bees that did at least five consecutive foraging bouts) were selected for the experiment ( Raine et al. , 2006 ). After pre-training, the preference of both healthy and infected pre-trained bees was tested for blue plastic flowers (Perspex ® 727) containing nicotine (one patch reward: 2.5 ng/μl nicotine in 30% sucrose solution; one patch reward: only 30% sucrose solution). Each bee ( n = 31 infected bees; n = 28 healthy bees) was tested individually and one hundred consecutive choices were recorded after the first bout was initiated. Bees were regarded as choosing a flower when they landed and fed from it. Bees approaching or just briefly touching a flower were not considered as choosing that flower. As in the pre-training, flowers were refilled after the bee moved to a different one so that bees never experienced an empty flower with the exception of the last visited one. Flowers were washed between subsequent bees in order to remove possible scent marks ( Saleh & Chittka, 2006 ). The patch formed by nicotine-containing flowers was swapped from left to right for half the bees of each group (healthy and infected bees). Controlled illumination was provided by high frequency fluorescent lighting [(TMS 24F) lamp with HF-B 236 TLD (4.3 Khz) ballasts, Phillips, Netherlands fitted with Activa daylight fluorescent tubes, Osram] which simulated natural daylight ( Dyer & Chittka, 2004 ). At the end of the experiment all the bees were sacrificed and the concentration of C. bombi in their hind gut was determined (see above). Statistical analysis In the infection experiments, 10 out of 80 bees perished by day 10 for unknown causes. Thus, we quantified the infection intensities of 40 (day 7) and 36 (day 10) bees in the “Continuous Exposure” experiment, and 37 (day 7) and 34 (day 10) bees in the “Delayed Exposure” experiment. To compare differences in parasite load between control and experimental bees 7 and 10 days after inoculation in both experiments we used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), with pathogen counts as the within-subject variable and C. bombi exposure to nicotine, time (day 7 and day 10), colony of origin, and bee body weight as explanatory factors. As the data were not normally distributed and homogeneity of variances and sphericity could not be assumed in several cases, we performed corrections according to Huynh-Feldt epsilon ( Field, 2009 ). For the statistical evaluations in the survival experiments, we used the classical survival parameters (i.e. the survival distribution and the median survival time (LT50)). The survival distributions for all treatments were quantified using the Breslow Statistic (Mantel–Cox Test). The following variables were entered in the regression model: colony of origin, body weight, nicotine treatment. For the behavioural experiment, a T test was used to examine differences between preferences for nicotine-rich nectar and control nectar in healthy and infected bees. Spearman rank correlation tests were used to correlate parasite load and nicotine preference. All statistical analyses were done on SPSS 13 ® for Windows. Results Infection experiments In both the “Continuous Exposure” and the “Delayed Exposure” tests control bees had comparable levels of C. bombi infection (t test, day 7: t = 0.16, df = 37, P = 0.98; day 10: t = 0.92, df = 34, P = 0.36). In the “Continuous Exposure” test, a diet laced with nicotine reduced the intensity of C. bombi infections in bee workers ( Dataset 1 ). GLMM analysis revealed significant main effects of nicotine and time since inoculation on infection intensity, but not colony of origin or bee body weight ( Table 1 ). At both 7 and 10 days after inoculation, bees exposed to nicotine had infections that were (on average) 1.11 and 0.56 times respectively less intense than control bees (t test, day 7: n = 20-20, t = 5.2, df = 38, P < 0.001; day 10: n = 18-18, t = 3.47, df = 34, P = 0.001; Figure 1 ). Infection intensity increased significantly from day 7 to day 10, independently of nicotine treatment (no-significant Nicotine and Colony x Time effect; Table 1 ). Table 1. “Continuous Exposure” test: results from GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees. Factor F-value Df P-value Nicotine diet 35.3 1,61 0.001 Time since inoculation 16.2 1,61 0.001 Bee body weight 1.07 1,61 0.3 Colony 0.46 1,65 0.8 Interactions - - N.S. Figure 1. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees that received either a nicotine diet (Experimental bees, n = 20) or a sucrose only diet (Control bees, n = 20). Faeces were checked after 7 days and 10 days post inoculation. Box plots show medians, 25 th and 75 th percentiles (** P < 0.001; * P = 0.001). In the “Delayed Exposure” test, exposing C. bombi to nicotine for two hours before inoculation had no effect on parasite load ( Table 2 ) ( Dataset 1 ). At 7 days and 10 days post-inoculation, bees exposed to nicotine had infections that on average were as intense as those of control bees (t test, day 7: n = 19-18, t = 0.16, df = 35, P = 0.87; day 10: n = 17-17, t = -0.69, df = 32, P = 0.5; Figure 2 ). Infections intensified significantly from day 7 to day 10, independently of nicotine treatment (there was no significant Nicotine x Time and Colony x Time effects; Table 2 ). Taken together, these findings prove the antimicrobial activity of nicotine against the pathogen when ingested by bumblebees, but also indicate that when pathogens are exposed to the alkaloid prior to host ingestion the protozoan’s viability is not strongly affected. Table 2. Delayed Exposure test: results from the GLMM analysis of C. bombi population dynamics in bumblebees. Factor F-value Df P-value Nicotine pre-treatment 0.02 1,62 0.8 Time since inoculation 27.1 1,60 0.001 Bee body weight 0.52 1,62 0.4 Colony 2.9 1,62 0.1 Interactions - - N.S. Bee CE-Exp Parasites 7 CE-Exp Parasites 10 CE-Exp Colony CE-Exp Diet CE-Exp Body weight CE-Exp Bee DE Exp Parasites (7) DE Exp Parasites (10) DE Exp Colony DE Exp Diet DE Exp Body weight DE Exp 1 238 318 1 1 0.41 1 469 541 1 1 0.392 2 315 589 1 1 0.3 2 401 648 1 1 0.26 3 615 806 1 1 0.3 3 855 779 1 1 0.336 4 220 332 1 1 0.28 4 801 634 1 1 0.216 5 274 517 1 1 0.26 5 532 609 1 1 0.214 6 497 1 1 0.27 6 287 1 1 0.278 7 674 748 1 1 0.33 7 375 574 1 1 0.356 8 655 839 1 1 0.22 8 664 752 1 1 0.24 9 260 350 1 1 0.23 9 226 914 2 1 0.294 10 989 1108 1 1 0.26 10 521 615 2 1 0.236 11 468 624 2 1 0.19 11 378 511 2 1 0.266 12 445 527 2 1 0.25 12 201 443 2 1 0.182 13 300 535 2 1 0.34 13 331 456 2 1 0.27 14 445 647 2 1 0.3 14 345 851 2 1 0.188 15 422 609 2 1 0.34 15 405 513 2 1 0.332 16 542 475 2 1 0.31 16 710 954 2 1 0.246 17 607 583 2 1 0.29 17 383 868 2 1 0.274 18 401 2 1 0.23 18 357 391 2 1 0.29 19 238 485 2 1 0.27 19 337 2 1 0.208 20 444 600 2 1 0.23 20 532 957 1 2 0.33 21 213 196 1 2 0.26 21 699 783 1 2 0.14 22 146 243 1 2 0.28 22 458 520 1 2 0.272 23 110 150 1 2 0.22 23 397 806 1 2 0.252 24 182 550 1 2 0.3 24 271 650 1 2 0.312 25 228 1 2 0.25 25 775 841 1 2 0.284 26 198 563 1 2 0.22 26 377 435 1 2 0.166 27 160 309 1 2 0.25 27 366 453 1 2 0.332 28 214 231 1 2 0.17 28 429 591 1 2 0.24 29 322 325 1 2 0.37 29 641 688 1 2 0.266 30 242 427 1 2 0.29 30 638 757 2 2 0.28 31 355 845 2 2 0.22 31 267 556 2 2 0.356 32 267 406 2 2 0.27 32 498 1101 2 2 0.268 33 166 142 2 2 0.29 33 311 477 2 2 0.32 34 293 344 2 2 0.31 34 489 760 2 2 0.332 35 180 494 2 2 0.38 35 371 494 2 2 0.266 36 215 302 2 2 0.27 36 249 2 2 0.236 37 280 2 2 0.25 37 191 937 2 2 0.164 38 270 327 2 2 0.3 39 138 503 2 2 0.33 Dataset 1. Infection experiments. Effect of nicotine on parasite load in infected bumblebees. Figure 2. Intensity of C. bombi infections in bumblebees inoculated with pathogens previously exposed to nicotine for two hours (Experimental bees, n = 20) or to a control sucrose diet (Control bees, n = 20). Faeces were checked after 7 days and 10 days post inoculation. Box plots show medians, 25 th and 75 th percentiles ( P = N.S.). Laboratory toxicity bioassays In the “Starved” test, statistical evaluation of the survivorship of control and experimental bumblebees revealed that a nicotine diet was not a significant predictor of mortality (Log-rank Mantel Cox test χ 2 = 0.21, df = 1, P = 0.88; Figure 3A ) ( Dataset 2 ). Furthermore no effect of colony of origin and bee body weight on mortality was found (GLM, treatments: F = 1.1, df = 1, P = 0.29; Colony F = 0.46, df = 2, P = 0.63; body weight: F = 0.19, df = 1, P = 0.66). The median lethal time (LT50) for the two groups did not differ (control LT50: 39 hours, exp. bees LT50 = 37 hours). Figure 3. A : Cumulative survival of healthy bees fed with a sucrose solution with (blue line) or without (green line) nicotine and starved. B : Cumulative survival of healthy bees that received a daily diet of sucrose solution with (beige line), or without nicotine (blue line), or a single dose of nicotine on day one (green line). In the “ ad libitum food” test a Log-rank Mantel Cox test showed that a daily diet including nicotine was a significant predictor of mortality (χ 2 = 11.56, df = 2, n = 180, P = 0.003; Figure 3B ) ( Dataset 2 ). Pairwise statistical comparisons revealed that bees fed consistently with nicotine had significantly lower survivorship than ‘Nicotine-once’ and ‘Control bumblebees’ ( P = 0.001), while the latter two experimental groups did not differ ( P = 0.86). LT50 of bees fed daily with nicotine was 39 days while ‘Nicotine-once’ bumblebees and control bees had a LT50 of 44 and 43 days respectively. Colony of origin and body weight did not affect bee mortality (GLM, Colony: F = 0.35, df = 2, P = 0.71; body weight: F = 1.90, df = 1, P = 0.16), but we found a significant interaction between body weight and treatment (larger bees were less susceptible to nicotine, GLM, F = 5.12, df = 1, P = 0.025). Taken together, these findings indicate that nicotine has some detrimental effects on healthy bumblebees if consistently consumed for weeks but also that these effects are possibly quite weak. Dataset 2. Revision 1. Laboratory toxicity bioassays. Effect of nicotine on healthy bee survival. The ‘Body weight (ad libitum)’ column previously contained duplicate data, the correct values have now been reinstated. Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine In both “ ad libitum food bees” and “starved bees” tests, a nicotine diet was not a significant predictor of survival (Log-rank Mantel Cox test: “ ad libitum food bees”: n = 135, Nic-Nic vs Nic-Suc χ 2 = 0.3, P = 0.6; Nic-Nic vs Suc-Suc χ 2 = 0.01, P = 0.9; Nic-Suc vs Suc-Suc χ 2 = 0.7, P = 0.4; “Starved bees”, n = 76; Nic-Nic vs Nic-Suc χ 2 = 0.4, P = 0.5; Nic-Nic vs Suc-Suc χ 2 = 0.1, P = 0.7; Nic-Suc vs Suc-Suc χ 2 = 0.01, P = 0.9) ( Dataset 3 ). Furthermore no effect of colony of origin on mortality was found (GLM, “ ad libitum food bees”: F = 1.4, df = 2, P = 0.24; “Starved bees”: GLM, F = 2.02, df = 2, P = 0.14). The median lethal time LT50 for the three groups did not differ (“ ad libitum food bees”: Suc-Suc LT50: 22 days, Nic-Suc LT50 = 23, days, Nic-Nic LT50 = 22; “Starved bees”: Suc-Suc LT50: 25 hours, Nic-Suc LT50 = 28 hours, Nic-Nic LT50 = 31 hours). GLMM analysis revealed significant main effects of treatment (df = 2, F = 3.46, P = 0.03) and time since inoculation (df = 1, F = 57.3, P < 0.001) on infection intensity, but not colony of origin (df = 2, F = 1.64, P = 1.96). No interaction between diet, time and colony was significant. Overall bees caged in Petri dishes consumed less food over the entire duration of the experiment if exposed to nicotine (Anova test: F = 9.68, n = 90, df = 2, 87, P = 0.001; Dunnett T3 post hoc test: Suc-Suc vs Nic-Nic and Suc-Suc vs Nic-Suc P < 0.001) ( Dataset 4 ). Infected bees showed a slight preference (54 ± 17%) for sucrose solution laced with nicotine (Paired samples t test, t = 2.14, df = 29, n = 30, P = 0.04). Overall these findings indicate that, even though nicotine reduces the parasite load in infected bees, and such bees have a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid, there is no net benefit in term of survival for infected bees. Bees (Starved) Colony (Starved) Treatment (Starved) Treatnum (Starved) Survival hours (Starved) Colony (ad libitum) Treatment (ad libitum) Treatnum (ad libitum) Survival days (ad libitum) 46 1 NN 3 2 1 NN 1 12 44 3 NS 2 3 1 NN 1 13 28 1 NS 2 14 1 NN 1 16 21 3 SS 1 12 1 NN 1 18 13 2 SS 1 19 1 NN 1 19 40 2 NS 2 9 1 NN 1 21 68 3 SS 1 12 1 NN 1 21 71 3 SS 1 13 1 NN 1 21 18 2 SS 1 18 1 NN 1 23 2 1 SS 1 15 1 NN 1 25 51 1 NN 3 18 1 NN 1 26 52 1 NN 3 16 1 NN 1 27 39 2 NS 2 18 1 NN 1 27 62 2 NN 3 29 1 NN 1 26 33 2 NS 2 17 1 NN 1 28 65 3 NN 3 20 2 NN 1 34 20 2 SS 1 20 2 NN 1 17 88 3 NN 3 19 2 NN 1 17 14 2 SS 1 19 2 NN 1 19 4 1 SS 1 24 2 NN 1 21 67 3 NN 3 24 2 NN 1 21 78 3 NS 2 21 2 NN 1 22 6 1 SS 1 22 2 NN 1 23 50 1 NN 3 25 2 NN 1 23 12 2 SS 1 23 2 NN 1 24 41 2 NS 2 23 2 NN 1 24 70 3 SS 1 23 2 NN 1 24 66 3 NN 3 24 2 NN 1 25 29 1 NS 2 24 2 NN 1 29 1 1 SS 1 25 2 NN 1 31 72 3 SS 1 25 3 NN 1 6 23 1 NS 2 26 3 NN 1 14 77 3 NS 2 27 3 NN 1 16 27 1 NS 2 27 3 NN 1 17 42 2 NS 2 28 3 NN 1 19 19 2 SS 1 29 3 NN 1 21 60 2 NN 3 30 3 NN 1 21 24 1 NS 2 30 3 NN 1 22 32 1 NS 2 30 3 NN 1 22 87 3 NN 3 30 3 NN 1 24 47 1 NN 3 31 3 NN 1 25 58 2 NN 3 32 3 NN 1 25 5 1 SS 1 32 3 NN 1 28 30 1 NS 2 33 3 NN 1 29 34 2 NS 2 34 3 NN 1 30 49 1 NN 3 34 1 NS 2 16 56 2 NN 3 35 1 NS 2 17 8 1 SS 1 35 1 NS 2 19 43 3 NS 2 36 1 NS 2 20 11 2 SS 1 36 1 NS 2 20 57 2 NN 3 36 1 NS 2 21 61 2 NN 3 39 1 NS 2 21 17 2 SS 1 39 1 NS 2 22 37 2 NS 2 40 1 NS 2 24 64 2 NN 3 40 1 NS 2 25 3 1 SS 1 40 1 NS 2 25 35 2 NS 2 40 1 NS 2 27 79 3 NS 2 42 1 NS 2 31 55 2 NN 3 42 1 NS 2 28 53 1 NN 3 43 1 NS 2 28 16 2 SS 1 44 2 NS 2 8 45 1 NN 3 44 2 NS 2 11 7 1 SS 1 45 2 NS 2 16 10 1 SS 1 46 2 NS 2 18 54 1 NN 3 46 2 NS 2 18 36 2 NS 2 47 2 NS 2 20 63 2 NN 3 48 2 NS 2 20 26 1 NS 2 49 2 NS 2 23 25 1 NS 2 50 2 NS 2 24 59 2 NN 3 50 2 NS 2 25 69 3 SS 1 50 2 NS 2 27 9 1 SS 1 51 2 NS 2 29 15 2 SS 1 52 2 NS 2 29 31 1 NS 2 52 2 NS 2 31 48 1 NN 3 52 2 NS 2 27 80 3 NS 2 53 3 NS 2 12 22 3 SS 1 3 NS 2 18 38 2 NS 2 3 NS 2 19 73 3 SS 1 3 NS 2 20 74 3 SS 1 3 NS 2 21 75 3 SS 1 3 NS 2 21 76 3 NS 2 3 NS 2 23 81 3 NS 2 3 NS 2 23 82 3 NS 2 3 NS 2 23 83 3 NS 2 3 NS 2 24 84 3 NN 3 3 NS 2 26 85 3 NN 3 3 NS 2 31 86 3 NN 3 3 NS 2 32 89 3 NN 3 3 NS 2 31 90 3 NN 3 3 NS 2 26 1 SS 3 15 1 SS 3 3 1 SS 3 11 1 SS 3 14 1 SS 3 14 1 SS 3 16 1 SS 3 18 1 SS 3 18 1 SS 3 19 1 SS 3 21 1 SS 3 22 1 SS 3 24 1 SS 3 29 1 SS 3 27 1 SS 3 30 2 SS 3 9 2 SS 3 15 2 SS 3 17 2 SS 3 20 2 SS 3 20 2 SS 3 21 2 SS 3 22 2 SS 3 22 2 SS 3 22 2 SS 3 24 2 SS 3 24 2 SS 3 27 2 SS 3 27 2 SS 3 28 2 SS 3 31 3 SS 3 15 3 SS 3 19 3 SS 3 21 3 SS 3 23 3 SS 3 24 3 SS 3 24 3 SS 3 24 3 SS 3 25 3 SS 3 25 3 SS 3 26 3 SS 3 28 3 SS 3 29 3 SS 3 26 3 SS 3 26 Dataset 3. Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine. Dietary nicotine effect on parasite load and life expectancy in infected bumblebees. Survival (Nic-Nic) Nicotine Nicotine TOT Consumption (Nic-Nic) Survival (Suc-Suc) Sucrose Sucrose TOT Consumption (Suc-Suc) Survival (Suc-Nic) Sucrose Nicotine TOT consumption (Suc-Nic) 25 400 600 1025 24 0 200 200 23 400 600 1000 25 300 1000 1325 24 0 900 900 27 340 900 1240 34 200 1200 1434 22 10 1000 1010 29 200 100 300 24 0 1500 1524 24 50 100 150 29 350 1150 1500 24 800 800 1624 26 100 100 200 20 1400 900 2300 27 200 220 447 29 100 100 200 19 1400 1200 2600 21 400 1300 1721 24 100 200 300 27 600 400 1000 22 400 1400 1822 27 100 200 300 24 600 1000 1600 23 900 1300 2223 23 100 1400 1500 20 700 700 1400 21 600 600 1221 21 100 1500 1600 24 800 500 1300 23 1400 200 1623 24 120 100 220 23 900 950 1850 21 700 300 1021 28 200 200 400 23 800 400 1200 25 800 350 1175 22 200 1400 1600 22 300 800 1100 21 800 600 1421 20 300 300 600 21 1300 500 1800 21 800 700 1521 22 300 300 600 21 600 600 1200 24 800 900 1724 24 300 400 700 30 800 500 1300 21 1200 500 1721 27 500 100 600 26 1200 1100 2300 22 1000 300 1322 20 600 600 1200 19 1300 1200 2500 25 1000 400 1425 22 600 700 1300 21 1400 600 2000 22 1100 1200 2322 25 1000 0 1000 18 1400 1300 2700 27 1300 1200 2527 25 1000 1000 2000 20 1500 400 1900 19 1300 1400 2719 22 1300 1200 2500 20 1400 700 2100 24 1400 1100 2524 18 1400 1400 2800 18 1400 1300 2700 18 1400 1500 2918 19 1500 500 2000 18 1500 1400 2900 19 1400 1500 2919 19 1500 1100 2600 21 1500 1000 2500 23 1500 200 1723 21 1500 0 1500 32 100 50 150 21 1500 300 1821 25 0 300 300 23 50 400 450 21 1500 400 1921 30 300 0 300 20 1400 600 2000 26 1500 600 2126 29 500 500 1000 25 1500 1500 3000 19 1500 1000 2519 24 100 1500 1600 28 1300 200 1500 Dataset 4. Diet preference of caged bees. Caged infected bee preference for nicotine-laced nectars. Preference of freely flying bees for nicotine-laced flowers Infected bumblebees allowed to forage on plastic flowers showed a significantly increased propensity to visit nicotine rewarding flowers when compared to healthy bees (t test, n = 31, 28, t = -2.4, df = 57, P = 0.016; Figure 4 ) ( Dataset 5 ). Indeed on 100 consecutive choices infected bees visited the nicotine flowers on average 64.5 ± 13.8 (s.d.) times while healthy bees visited them 54.8 ± 19.4 (s.d.) times. Since test bees were introducing nicotine into the colony throughout testing, we controlled for prior exposure to nicotine effect on nicotine preference. Bees tested later in the experiment did not show a higher or lower nicotine preference (Spearman test, Infected bees: ρ = -0.21, n = 31, P = 0.3; Control bees n = 28, ρ = 0.041, P = 0.8). There was no correlation between pathogen load and the propensity of infected bees to visit flowers with nicotine-rich artificial nectar (Spearman test: n = 31, ρ = 0.19, df = 29, P = 0.28). Figure 4. Percentage of preferred flowers rewording with nicotine-rich artificial nectar by infected bees ( n = 31) and healthy bees ( n = 28), (t test, P = 0.016). Infected bees visited nicotine-containing flowers 64.5 ± 13.8 (s.d.) times while healthy bees visited them 54.8 ± 19.4 (s.d.) times. Colony Parasites Nicotine visits/100 visits 1 0 48 1 0 59 1 0 58 1 0 60 1 0 65 1 0 59 1 0 50 1 0 48 1 0 63 1 0 65 1 0 57 1 0 46 1 0 59 1 0 62 2 0 58 2 0 18 2 0 21 2 0 71 2 0 15 2 0 85 2 0 69 2 0 65 2 0 80 2 0 77 2 0 70 2 0 16 2 0 29 2 0 33 3 277 81 3 283 68 3 366 90 3 392 82 3 298 64 3 366 38 3 432 56 3 229 67 3 280 59 3 404 70 3 361 67 3 453 59 3 285 64 3 353 54 3 455 57 3 262 66 4 229 54 4 373 59 4 220 46 4 133 53 4 348 88 4 565 95 4 243 79 4 67 76 4 333 50 4 83 62 4 212 59 4 309 50 4 475 81 4 280 56 Dataset 5. Behavioural test. Percentage of preferred flowers rewording with nicotine-rich artificial nectar by infected and healthy bees. Discussion Here we demonstrate that parasitized bumblebees modify their diet preference and foraging behaviour, delaying the development of an infection. In our experimental setup the parasite infection induced an increased consumption of nicotine both in individually caged as well as in foraging bumblebees. Healthy bees exposed to nicotine suffer an appreciable cost, also in line with the key criteria for self-medication ( Abbott, 2014 ; Clayton & Wolfe, 1993 ; Singer et al. , 2009 ). However, despite this preferential ingestion of a “non-nutritive” antimicrobial alkaloid by infected bees, this behaviour appears to be of limited efficiency since dietary nicotine does not fully cure C. bombi infection, or increase longevity of infected bees, similarly to a recent study on the North American Bombus impatiens ( Richardson et al. , 2015 ). Nonetheless bumblebees in our study exhibited a reduced C. bombi load after daily consumption of the alkaloid making the existence of a potential self-medication phenomenon plausible. In nature, infection entails an array of costs and higher mortality under stressful conditions ( Alghamdi et al. , 2008 ; Brown et al. , 2000 ; Brown et al. , 2003 ; Gegear et al. , 2006 ). As a consequence, any reduction in the severity or progression of infection in bees, induced by mechanisms such as the consumption of nectar containing curative alkaloids (e.g. gelsemine ( Manson et al. , 2010 ), anabasine and nicotine ( Richardson et al. , 2015 )), might be beneficial in terms of fitness for both bees and colonies. Even if we cannot completely exclude that the limited effect of nicotine is due to the initial challenge being too strong for the nicotine to have a measurable influence on life expectancy, both nicotine concentration and Crithidia inocula used in our study simulated natural doses. It is, however, possible that the nicotine concentration available to workers within the colony is substantially different from that found in flowers. At one end of the scale of possibilities, nicotine-laced nectar might be regurgitated into honeypots containing nicotine-free nectar, resulting in further dilution of the nicotine concentration and even lower anti-microbial effects. On the other hand, if some individual foragers that have discovered alkaloid-containing nectar deposit it predominantly into certain honeypots, and concentration is further increased by evaporation and possibly modified by enzymatic addition, then such honeypots could contain substantially higher nicotine concentrations than found in floral nectar ( Thomson, 2015 ). It is possible that such honeypots could be a kind of colony ‘pharmacy’ specifically used for self-medication of infected workers, or to feed larvae to limit the spread of an infection within the colony (James Thomson, personal communication). Similar considerations apply to pollen, which might also contain alkaloids with antimicrobial properties ( Thomson, 2015 ). Additional field and mesocosm tests, as well measurements of alkaloid concentration in colony honeypots are thus needed to evaluate the actual concentrations to which different colony members and the brood are exposed, and thus to clarify the actual benefits of differential foraging for such substances. Nicotine also has a costly effect on uninfected individuals, as shown by our toxicological assays. A daily diet containing nicotine, lasting more than two months, reduced the life expectancy of bumblebees, and this effect was stronger in smaller bees. This might possibly be aggravated in the wild, where bees are exposed to other stressors and do not have access to ad libitum food. However, we note that differences in mortality rate between controls and nicotine-treated bees started to be evident only after 20 days from the first exposure suggesting that in nature this detrimental effect may be mitigated due to the relatively short lifespan of foragers in the wild ( da Silva-Matos & Garófalo, 2000 ). Moreover, in nature, bees are unlikely to visit a single nectar source continuously for weeks as in our experiments, further reducing the negative effect of nicotine intake. In infected bumblebees, which show a shorter lifespan than healthy ones, the detrimental effect of nicotine is no longer evident suggesting that detoxification costs might be counterbalanced by the advantages in slowing the progression of the infection. However, contrary to our prediction, we found no trade-off between costs and benefits in terms of survival, and infected bumblebee lifespan was not affected by the consumption on nicotine. Our analysis focussed on individual bumblebees in isolation and there might be many other subtle long term benefits we have not explored, such as possible benefits at the colony level. It might be that lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Infected bumblebees have impaired learning abilities ( Alghamdi et al. , 2008 ; Gegear et al. , 2006 ) and a reduction in parasite load might affect foraging efficiency or nursing ability, in turn enhancing colony productivity. Moreover, nicotine might be beneficial in slowing the progression of the infection through a colony, allowing, for example, the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. The cost imposed by the consumption of nicotine in our experiments may explain why healthy bees did not constantly consume high doses of nicotine ( Tiedeken et al. , 2014 ). Similarly, infected bees kept in Petri dishes reduced the overall uptake of food if exposed to nicotine. This is surprising given that those bumblebees also had a slight preference for sucrose solution laced with the alkaloid, and free-flying healthy bumblebees were not repelled by artificial nectar laced with nicotine. While these behavioural preferences may be explained by the impact that some nectar alkaloids, including nicotine, have on learning and memory in bees ( Chittka & Peng, 2013 ; Thany & Gauthier, 2005 ; Wright et al. , 2013 ), the mechanism behind the overall reduced consumption caused by nicotine remains unexplained. In humans at least, it is well established that nicotine has appetite-reducing effects ( Jessen et al. , 2005 ). Currently it is unclear how nicotine acts on C. bombi . Nicotine is a highly toxic molecule ( Benowitz, 1998 ) that acts against a wide spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens ( Pavia et al. , 2000 ). House sparrows and several finch species, for example, add smoked cigarette butts retaining substantial amounts of nicotine to their nests to reduce mite infestations ( Suárez-Rodríguez et al. , 2013 ). While our in vivo microbiological experiments prove the antimicrobial activity of nicotine against the pathogen when ingested, they also suggest that nicotine does not directly interfere with the protozoan’s viability, at least when measured as infectivity. As suggested by Manson et al. (2010) , who found similar effects of the natural alkaloid gelsemine, an alkaloid-rich diet might increase a bee’s excretion rate, as occurs for nectarivorous bird ( Tadmor-Melamed et al. , 2004 ), effectively “flushing” C. bombi cells from the gut. Another possibility might be that nicotine, or perhaps its metabolites, directly modify the mid-gut epithelium or the environment of its lumen, making it less suitable for the parasite. In conclusion, we showed that when infected, bumblebees use a nectar alkaloid, slowing the progression of the infection. Nicotine consumption did not affect bee lifespan but the reduction in the parasite load may have other likely subtle benefits both for individual bees and colony. Recent findings confirm the suggestion that the preferential ingestion of natural nectar secondary metabolites in pollinators might play a key role in mediating pathogen transmission within and between colonies ( Richardson et al. , 2015 ) or interactions among pollinators and their parasites ( Manson et al. , 2010 ). The observed increased ingestion of a nectar alkaloid might be a generalized response to sickness and not just to Crithidia . Similarly, our results and other recent studies ( Gherman et al. , 2014 ; Richardson et al. , 2015 ) provide potential evidence for self-medication mediated by the consumption of plant secondary metabolites. Yet, the conditions under which nicotine and other alkaloids consumption provides benefits to either bees or plants remain to be identified. We thus believe that a careful approach to interpreting impacts of plant metabolites on insect parasites is warranted. The contention that secondary metabolites in nectar may be under selection from pollinators, or used by plants to enhance their own reproductive success ( Chittka & Peng, 2013 ; Thomson et al. , 2015 ; Wright et al. , 2013 ), should ideally be confirmed with further studies, which examine the impacts of these metabolites on both bee and plant fitness under field-realistic conditions. Data availability F1000Research: Dataset 1. Infection experiments, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44610 ( Baracchi et al. , 2015a ). F1000Research: Dataset 2. Revision 1. Laboratory toxicity bioassays, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d48008 ( Baracchi et al. , 2015b ). F1000Research: Dataset 3. Trade-off between detrimental and beneficial effects of nicotine, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44613 ( Baracchi et al. , 2015c ). F1000Research: Dataset 4. Diet preference of caged bees, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44614 ( Baracchi et al. , 2015d ). F1000Research: Dataset 5. Behavioural test, 10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44615 ( Baracchi et al. , 2015e ). Author contributions D.B. conceived the study and carried out the experiments. D.B. and M.J.F.B. designed the experiments. L.C. made significant contributions to the interpretation of the data. All authors contributed in writing the first version of the manuscript and have agreed the final content. L.C. revised the paper. Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7 th European Community Framework Programme. The authors confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors thank Anna Woodhouse for helping in behavioural experiments, Dr. Gemma Baron for providing Crithidia samples, Dr. Caroline Brennan for nicotine solution, Thomas Ingraham (an employee of F1000Research) and three referees for comments on the manuscript. Faculty Opinions recommended References Abbott J: Self-medication in insects: current evidence and future perspectives. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39 (3): 273–280. Publisher Full Text Alghamdi A, Dalton L, Phillis A, et al. : Immune response impairs learning in free-flying bumble-bees. Biol Lett. 2008; 4 (5): 479–481. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 1 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015a. Data Source Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 2 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? F1000Research. 2015b. Data Source Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 3 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015c. Data Source Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 4 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015d. Data Source Baracchi D, Brown MJF, Chittka L: Dataset 5 in: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees. F1000Research. 2015e. Data Source Benowitz NL: Nicotine safety and toxicity. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 1998. Reference Source Bernays EA, Singer MS: Insect defences: taste alteration and endoparasites. Nature. 2005; 436 (7050): 476. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Brown MJF, Loosli R, Schmid-Hempel P: Condition-dependent expression of virulence in a trypanosome infecting bumblebees. Oikos. 2000; 91 (3): 421–427. Publisher Full Text Brown MJF, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P: Strong context-dependent virulence in a host–parasite system: reconciling genetic evidence with theory. J Anim Ecol. 2003; 72 (6): 994–1002. Publisher Full Text Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, et al. : Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108 (2): 662–667. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Chittka L: Sensorimotor learning in bumblebees: long-term retention and reversal training. J Exp Biol. 1998; 201 (4): 515–524. Reference Source Chittka L, Peng F: Neuroscience. Caffeine boosts bees’ memories. Science. 2013; 339 (6124): 1157–1159. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Clayton DH, Wolfe ND: The adaptive significance of self-medication. Trends Ecol Evol. 1993; 8 (2): 60–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Cowan MM: Plant products as antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999; 12 (4): 564–582. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text da Silva-Matos EV, Garófalo CA: Worker life tables, survivorship, and longevity in colonies of Bombus (Fervidobombus) atratus (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Rev Biol Trop. 2000; 48 (2–3): 657–663. PubMed Abstract de Miranda JR, Genersch E: Deformed wing virus. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103 (Suppl 1): S48–S61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text de Roode JC, Lefèvre T: Behavioral immunity in insects. Insects. 2012; 3 (3): 789–820. Publisher Full Text de Roode JC, Lefèvre T, Hunter MD: Ecology. Self-medication in animals. Science. 2013; 340 (6129): 150–151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Debban CL, Dyer KA: No evidence for behavioural adaptations to nematode parasitism by the fly Drosophila putrida . J Evol Biol. 2013; 26 (8): 1646–1654. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Detzel A, Wink M: Attraction, deterrence or intoxication of bees ( Apis mellifera ) by plant allelochemicals. Chemoecology. 1993; 4 (1): 8–18. Publisher Full Text Durrer S, Schmid-Hempel P: Shared use of flowers leads to horizontal pathogen transmission. Proc Biol Sci. 1994; 258 (1353): 299–302. Publisher Full Text Dyer AG, Chittka L: Bumblebees ( Bombus terrestris ) sacrifice foraging speed to solve difficult colour discrimination tasks. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004; 190 (9): 759–763. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Field A: Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications, 2009. Reference Source Fürst MA, McMahon DP, Osborne JL, et al. : Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature. 2014; 506 (7488): 364–366. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Gegear RJ, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Bumble-bee foragers infected by a gut parasite have an impaired ability to utilize floral information. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273 (1590): 1073–1078. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Gherman BI, Denner A, Bobiş O, et al. : Pathogen-associated self-medication behavior in the honeybee Apis mellifera . Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68 (11): 1777–1784. Publisher Full Text Hadacek F: Secondary metabolites as plant traits: current assessment and future perspectives. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2002; 21 (4): 273–322. Publisher Full Text Jessen A, Buemann B, Toubro S, et al. : The appetite-suppressant effect of nicotine is enhanced by caffeine. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2005; 7 (4): 327–333. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lefèvre T, Oliver L, Hunter MD, et al. : Evidence for trans-generational medication in nature. Ecol Lett. 2010; 13 (12): 1485–1493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Logan A, Ruiz-González MX, Brown MJF: The impact of host starvation on parasite development and population dynamics in an intestinal trypanosome parasite of bumble bees. Parasitology. 2005; 130 (Pt 6): 637–642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Lozano GA: Parasitic stress and self-medication in wild animals. Adv Stud Behav. 1998; 27 : 291–318. Reference Source Manson JS, Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees. Oecologia. 2010; 162 (1): 81–89. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text McArt SH, Koch H, Irwin RE, et al. : Arranging the bouquet of disease: floral traits and the transmission of plant and animal pathogens. Ecol Lett. 2014; 17 (5): 624–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text McMahon DP, Fürst MA, Casper J, et al. : A sting in the spit: widespread cross-infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. J Anim Ecol. 2015; 84 : 615–624. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Michalakis Y: Parasitism and the evolution of life-history traits. In Thomas F Guégan JF Renaud F (eds), Ecology and evolution of parasitism . Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 2009. Reference Source Milan NF, Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA: Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly. Curr Biol. 2012; 22 (6): 488–493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mooney KA, Agrawal AA: Plant genotype shapes ant-aphid interactions: implications for community structure and indirect plant defense. Am Nat. 2008; 171 (6): E195–E205. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Moore J: Parasites and the behavior of animals. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. 2002. Reference Source Naef R, Jaquier A, Velluz A, et al. : From the linden flower to linden honey--volatile constituents of linden nectar, the extract of bee-stomach and ripe honey. Chem Biodivers. 2004; 1 (12): 1870–1879. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Oliver KM, Degnan PH, Burke GR, et al. : Facultative symbionts in aphids and the horizontal transfer of ecologically important traits. Annu Rev Entomol. 2010; 55 : 247–266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Otterstatter MC, Thomson JD: Contact networks and transmission of an intestinal pathogen in bumble bee ( Bombus impatiens ) colonies. Oecologia. 2007; 154 (2): 411–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Pavia CS, Pierre A, Nowakowski J: Antimicrobial activity of nicotine against a spectrum of bacterial and fungal pathogens. J Med Microbiol. 2000; 49 (7): 675–676. PubMed Abstract Raine NE, Chittka L: The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees. Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275 (1636): 803–808. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Raine NE, Ings TC, Ramos-Rodriguez O, et al. : Intercolony variation in learning performance of a wild British bumblebee population (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus terrestris audax). Entomol Gen. 2006; 28 (4): 241–256. Publisher Full Text Richardson LL, Adler LS, Leonard AS, et al. : Secondary metabolites in floral nectar reduce parasite infections in bumblebees. Proc Biol Sci. 2015; 282 (1803): pii: 20142471. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rodriguez E, Wrangham R: Zoopharmacognosy: the use of medicinal plants by animals. In Downum KR, Romeo JT, Stafford HA (eds), Phytochemical potential of tropical plants . Springer: USA. 1993; 27 : 89–105. Publisher Full Text Rosenkranz P, Aumeier P, Ziegelmann B: Biology and control of Varroa destructor . J Invertebr Pathol. 2010; 103 (Suppl 1): S96–S119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Saleh N, Chittka L: The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006; 61 (2): 215–220. Publisher Full Text Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites in social insects. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. USA. 1998. Reference Source Schmid-Hempel P, Schmid-Hempel R: Transmission of a pathogen in Bombus terrestris , with a note on division of labour in social insects. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1993; 33 (5): 319–327. Publisher Full Text Schmid-Hempel R, Eckhardt M, Goulson D, et al. : The invasion of southern South America by imported bumblebees and associated parasites. J Anim Ecol. 2013; 83 (4): 823–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Shykoff JA, Schmid-Hempel P: Incidence and effects of four parasites in natural populations of bumble bees in Switzerland. Apidologie. 1991; 22 (2): 117–125. Publisher Full Text Simone-Finstrom MD, Spivak M: Increased resin collection after parasite challenge: a case of self-medication in honey bees? PLoS One. 2012; 7 (3): e34601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Singer MS, Mace KC, Bernays EA: Self-medication as adaptive plasticity: increased ingestion of plant toxins by parasitized caterpillars. PLoS One. 2009; 4 (3): e4796. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Smilanich AM, Mason PA, Sprung L, et al. : Complex effects of parasitoids on pharmacophagy and diet choice of a polyphagous caterpillar. Oecologia. 2011; 165 (4): 995–1005. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text St Leger RJ: Integument as a barrier to microbial infections. In Binnington K, Retnakara A (eds), Physiology of the insect epidermis CSIRO . 1991. Suárez-Rodríguez M, López-Rull I, Garcia CM: Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biol Lett. 2013; 9 (1): 20120931. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Tadmor-Melamed H, Markman S, Arieli A, et al. : Limited ability of Palestine sunbirds Nectarinia osea to cope with pyridine alkaloids in nectar of tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca . Funct Ecol. 2004; 18 (6): 844–850. Publisher Full Text Thany SH, Gauthier M: Nicotine injected into the antennal lobes induces a rapid modulation of sucrose threshold and improves short-term memory in the honeybee Apis mellifera . Brain Res. 2005; 1039 (1–2): 216–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Thomson JD: Referee Report For: Weak and contradictory effects of self-medication with nectar nicotine by parasitized bumblebees [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/56l ] F1000Res. 2015; 4 : 73. Publisher Full Text Thomson JD, Draguleasa MA, Tan MG: Flowers with caffeinated nectar receive more pollination. Arthropod Plant Interact. 2015; 9 (1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text Tiedeken EJ, Stout JC, Stevenson PC, et al. : Bumblebees are not deterred by ecologically relevant concentrations of nectar toxins. J Exp Biol. 2014; 217 (pt 9): 1620–1625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Tragust S, Mitteregger B, Barone V, et al. : Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison. Curr Biol. 2013; 23 (1): 76–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wrangham RW: Relationship of chimpanzee leaf-swallowing to a tapeworm infection. Am J Primatol. 1995; 37 (4): 297–303. Publisher Full Text Wright GA, Baker DD, Palmer MJ, et al. : Caffeine in floral nectar enhances a pollinator’s memory of reward. Science. 2013; 339 (6124): 1202–1204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 2 School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information D.B. was supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 29 Oct 2015, 4:73 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3 version 2 Revised Published: 26 May 2015, 4:73 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.2 version 1 Published: 19 Mar 2015, 4:73 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.1 Copyright © 2015 Baracchi D et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6262.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 May 2015 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Simone-Finstrom M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r8767 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-8767 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Sep 2015 Michael Simone-Finstrom , Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r8767 I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading READ ALL Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Simone-Finstrom M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r8767 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-8767 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Thomson JD. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r9415 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-9415 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 Jul 2015 James D. Thomson , Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r9415 I have now looked through the new version and can happily remove my reservations regarding the earlier version. My main biological concern—that dosages of secondary metabolites need to be considered in the light of honeypot dynamics—is now given an intelligent ... Continue reading READ ALL I have now looked through the new version and can happily remove my reservations regarding the earlier version. My main biological concern—that dosages of secondary metabolites need to be considered in the light of honeypot dynamics—is now given an intelligent discussion. The problems with table entries and figure labels have also been corrected. I did not see a need to change the title, but I agree that the new title is good and appropriate. Competing Interests: Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Thomson JD. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r9415 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-9415 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Spivak M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8216 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8216 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2015 Marla Spivak , Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8216 Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the ... Continue reading READ ALL Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Spivak M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8216 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8216 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. ... Continue reading Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly. Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted. Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly. Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. ... Continue reading Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly. Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted. Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly. Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Simone-Finstrom M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8215 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8215 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Apr 2015 Michael Simone-Finstrom , Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8215 The authors presented a fairly comprehensive set of experiments in order to elucidate the role that nicotine may have in self-medication of bumblebees against Chrithidia infection. The experiments progress well, starting with controlled lab infection studies to lab-based diet and lifespan analysis to ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors presented a fairly comprehensive set of experiments in order to elucidate the role that nicotine may have in self-medication of bumblebees against Chrithidia infection. The experiments progress well, starting with controlled lab infection studies to lab-based diet and lifespan analysis to a semi-field foraging test. I think the authors sufficiently described the methods and subsequent results and mostly had an appropriate discussion of the relevant findings. I just have a few small issues that the authors could address to improve and clarify aspects of the manuscript. But overall it is a strong paper. First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Generally, tables and figures could be labeled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. The legend for Figure 3 should explicitly state that these bees were all uninfected, since this is an important point, and since the lifespan data of infected bees is not represented in a figure. For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Chrithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Trade-off: Important to note that Chrithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Chrithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Simone-Finstrom M. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8215 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8215 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just ... Continue reading Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead. Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above. Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern. Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test. Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used. Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version. Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version. Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion. Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues. Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead. Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above. Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern. Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test. Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used. Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version. Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version. Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion. Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just ... Continue reading Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead. Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above. Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern. Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test. Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used. Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version. Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version. Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion. Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues. Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead. Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above. Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern. Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test. Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used. Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version. Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version. Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion. Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Thomson JD. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8036 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8036 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Mar 2015 James D. Thomson , Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8036 Content of paper . This paper reports a set of nicely designed experiments aimed at determining whether Bombus terrestris self-medicates against trypanosome ( Crithidia bombi) infection by seeking and consuming nicotine-laced floral nectar. Using captive bee colonies and artificial flowers in laboratory ... Continue reading READ ALL Content of paper . This paper reports a set of nicely designed experiments aimed at determining whether Bombus terrestris self-medicates against trypanosome ( Crithidia bombi) infection by seeking and consuming nicotine-laced floral nectar. Using captive bee colonies and artificial flowers in laboratory conditions permits well-controlled manipulative experiments that would be effectively impossible in the field. The results are ambivalent, in that dietary nicotine does reduce the intensity of gut infection, and infected bees do seek out nicotine, but attempts to demonstrate improved health in terms of worker bee lifespan yield negative results. For the most part, I endorse both the interpretation of these results and the recognition by Baracchi et al. that further research is needed to settle the question of self-medication. I do have three reservations about the interpretations offered here, however, and I think the paper would be improved by some additional discussion of these issues. First, any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Second, by choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Third, by considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae (who are the primary consumers of that pollen) may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Errors. In this review process, the lack of line numbers, or an editable form of the MS, makes it hard to flag such things as unclear phrases. Here are a few mistakes that should be addressed, however: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Competing Interests: Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Thomson JD. Reviewer Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8036 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8036 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state ... Continue reading Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point. Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers. Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. I nstead, we now carefully discuss all these issues. Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them. Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section. Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point. Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers. Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. I nstead, we now carefully discuss all these issues. Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them. Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka , Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK 29 Oct 2015 Author Response Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state ... Continue reading Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point. Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers. Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. I nstead, we now carefully discuss all these issues. Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them. Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section. Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point. Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers. Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. I nstead, we now carefully discuss all these issues. Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them. Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section. Competing Interests: n/a Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 19 Mar 2015 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 29 Oct 15 Version 2 (revision) 26 May 15 read read Version 1 19 Mar 15 read read read James D. Thomson , University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Michael Simone-Finstrom , North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA Marla Spivak , University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2015 Simone-Finstrom M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Sep 2015 | for Version 2 Michael Simone-Finstrom , Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 0 Views copyright © 2015 Simone-Finstrom M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Simone-Finstrom M. Peer Review Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r8767) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-8767 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2015 Thomson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 Jul 2015 | for Version 2 James D. Thomson , Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2015 Thomson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have now looked through the new version and can happily remove my reservations regarding the earlier version. My main biological concern—that dosages of secondary metabolites need to be considered in the light of honeypot dynamics—is now given an intelligent discussion. The problems with table entries and figure labels have also been corrected. I did not see a need to change the title, but I agree that the new title is good and appropriate. Competing Interests Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Thomson JD. Peer Review Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7009.r9415) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v2#referee-response-9415 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2015 Spivak M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Apr 2015 | for Version 1 Marla Spivak , Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA 0 Views copyright © 2015 Spivak M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Referee comment: Determining the extent that bumble bees may self-medicate by consuming floral nectar containing antimicrobial secondary plant metabolites when infected with a pathogen is a fascinating line of study. The experiments presented are well conducted and analyzed, and I found the results not entirely surprising or contradictory. Author reply: We agree both and we changed the title and the discussion accordingly. Referee comment: There was a temporary effect of nicotine (when provided in sugar syrup) against Crithidia bombi in Bombus terrestris workers. This effect might have been stronger and more long lasting, and even might have cleared the infection, if the dose of nicotine consumed was higher. This could be tested in future experiments using the high- and low-end concentrations found in floral nectar. Even though the infected bees preferred sucrose laced with nicotine in the clever foraging tests and in petri dishes, the authors say the results should be interpreted with caution because the life expectancy of the infected, nicotine-fed bees was not increased relative to controls. But as they also point out, bees don’t live very long, and many factors affect worker bee life expectancy. Possibly, at the colony level, reducing the infection level even for a few days in a certain number of workers might slow the rate of horizontal transmission among nest mates; this remains to be tested. I think it would be revealing to test the effects of these alkaloids, or other plant metabolites, on infected queen bumble bees. As Crithidia is also vertically transmitted, it would be interesting to know if the vertical transmission of this parasite could be reduced if the queen ingests nectar that contains antimicrobial metabolites. It also would be interesting to know if the infected workers that collect nectar containing these compounds feed the queen with them, potentially lowering her pathogen load, which would then might allow her to produce more reproductive male and gynes. These types of experiments are more difficult, but could yield more field-relevant results. Yet, the experiments presented here are great first steps in understanding a new area of research on the interaction of pollinators, pathogens and plant compounds. I greatly appreciate that the authors offer a cautionary stance in interpreting their results, but I do think, given the physiological tradeoffs involved in consuming potentially toxic compounds, that small temporary effects on individual bees might translate to larger effects at the colony-level. Author reply: We agree and we now explain in the discussion that our results provide potential evidence for self-medication. Yet, until measurable benefits for the bees or the colonies are found we think that caution is warranted. View more View less Competing Interests n/a reply Respond Report a concern Spivak M. Peer Review Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8216) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8216 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2015 Simone-Finstrom M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Apr 2015 | for Version 1 Michael Simone-Finstrom , Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 0 Views copyright © 2015 Simone-Finstrom M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors presented a fairly comprehensive set of experiments in order to elucidate the role that nicotine may have in self-medication of bumblebees against Chrithidia infection. The experiments progress well, starting with controlled lab infection studies to lab-based diet and lifespan analysis to a semi-field foraging test. I think the authors sufficiently described the methods and subsequent results and mostly had an appropriate discussion of the relevant findings. I just have a few small issues that the authors could address to improve and clarify aspects of the manuscript. But overall it is a strong paper. First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Generally, tables and figures could be labeled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. The legend for Figure 3 should explicitly state that these bees were all uninfected, since this is an important point, and since the lifespan data of infected bees is not represented in a figure. For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Chrithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Trade-off: Important to note that Chrithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Chrithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Referee comment: First, I do think “contradictory” could be removed from the title as I don’t think the results are necessarily contradictory, but do just show a weak effect. Just because the ingestion of nicotine reduces parasite infection and does not have a subsequent effect of increasing lifespan of infected bees, this does not mean that there are no other fitness-related benefits or that at different doses effects may not be more pronounced. I think “weak effect” aptly describes the findings. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we removed the word “Contradictory” from the title and phrased it as a question instead. Referee comment: Generally, tables and figures could be labelled more effectively. For example, I think the fact that Figure 1 and 2 have the same x-axis is problematic given what the experimental treatments were. I think in Figure 2 it would be better to indicate that the Nicotine there is the Nicotine pre-treatment. Same for Table 2. Whereas in Figure 1 it would be nicotine diet. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the tables as outlined above. Referee comment: For the discussion and results, overall I think there just are a few other points that can be made. One is simply drawing stronger connections across the multitude of tests that were done. Author reply: We changed part of the discussion to address this concern. Referee comment: Infection experiments: would it be valuable to show statistically that there is no difference between the pre-treated Crithidia and the standard (basically comparing figure 1 and figure 2)? Author reply: As suggested by the referee we added the statistical test. Referee comment: Also is the 2-hour exposure time relevant? How was this decided upon? Same for dose of exposure. I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly or at least a citation provided to justify this amount. Author reply: In the Materials and Methods section we provided a citation to justify the protocol used. Referee comment: Trade-off: Important to note that Crithidia infection was found to reduce lifespan of bees (as compared to the bees in the toxicity part of the study). Author reply: We stressed this point more clearly in the revised version. Referee comment: I think a discussion of the relevance of the doses used is important. Were any dose-response trials conducted? Presumably at a higher dose, it would be even more toxic to the bees and lower doses may not have much of an effect. Author reply: We agree and since the same point has been also raised by a second referee (James Thomson) we discuss carefully and more clearly this important point in the revised version. Referee comment: Could ingestion of nectar alkaloids be a generalized response to sickness? So maybe it’s not as effective against Crithidia , but this isn’t the only parasite bumblebees get. Author reply: The referee suggestion is valid and we now mention this in the discussion. Referee comment: A larger context into how this might influence colony dynamics and health is important. This is hinted at in a couple sentences, but since all of these studies were really done with individual bees or individual behavior, this is a significant point. Perhaps lifespan analysis of forager bumblebees would be different in a social setting. Similarly perhaps fitness benefits aren’t seen since it’s just measured in terms of individual lifespan, but maybe a reduction in parasite load affects foraging efficiency or nursing ability and thus colony productivity. Author reply: In line with the important comment, also raised by a second referee (James Thomson), we added a paragraph to further discuss these issues. View more View less Competing Interests n/a reply Respond Report a concern Simone-Finstrom M. Peer Review Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8215) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8215 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2015 Thomson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Mar 2015 | for Version 1 James D. Thomson , Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2015 Thomson J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Content of paper . This paper reports a set of nicely designed experiments aimed at determining whether Bombus terrestris self-medicates against trypanosome ( Crithidia bombi) infection by seeking and consuming nicotine-laced floral nectar. Using captive bee colonies and artificial flowers in laboratory conditions permits well-controlled manipulative experiments that would be effectively impossible in the field. The results are ambivalent, in that dietary nicotine does reduce the intensity of gut infection, and infected bees do seek out nicotine, but attempts to demonstrate improved health in terms of worker bee lifespan yield negative results. For the most part, I endorse both the interpretation of these results and the recognition by Baracchi et al. that further research is needed to settle the question of self-medication. I do have three reservations about the interpretations offered here, however, and I think the paper would be improved by some additional discussion of these issues. First, any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Second, by choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Third, by considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae (who are the primary consumers of that pollen) may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Errors. In this review process, the lack of line numbers, or an editable form of the MS, makes it hard to flag such things as unclear phrases. Here are a few mistakes that should be addressed, however: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Competing Interests Statement regarding conflict. I have two connections to this research. First, Lars Chittka did a stint of postdoctoral work in my lab at Stony Brook; we collaborated on several papers in the 1990s, and co-edited a book in 2001. We correspond occasionally but have not had an active collaboration since then. Second, I later supervised postdoctoral research on bumble bee disease and nectar chemistry by Robert Gegear, dissertations by Michael Otterstatter and Jessamyn Manson, and undergraduate research by Miruna Draguleasa. I share authorship on several of their papers that are cited prominently by Baracchi et al. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 29 Oct 2015 Lars Chittka, Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Referee comment: …Any anti-parasitic medicinal effects of toxic compounds will depend on dose rates. Too much medicine may harm the host; too little may exert no therapeutic effect. Baracchi et al. state that they have used “natural” dosages of nicotine, but what that means is that they have prepared solutions whose nicotine levels match those reported from some floral nectars. That is an appropriate starting point, but there may be little correspondence between the concentrations that flowers offer and those that bees are exposed to in a natural colony. Foraging workers typically collect floral nectar from various plant species that differ in nectar chemistry. Much of what they collect is not digested by the collectors themselves, but is transported back to the nest and regurgitated into communal honeypots that serve as energy stores for the larvae, the queen, and the many workers that do not forage. As this complicated cocktail is assembled, soluble compounds are concentrated by evaporation, diluted by mixing with other nectars, and probably further modified by enzymatic and microbial action. There is no reason to expect that the concentration of any particular compound in this brew bears any relationship to its concentration in one of the many floral nectars that have been pooled. Indeed, honeypots within a nest may hold different mixtures because particular foragers tend to discharge their collections into particular honeypots. I believe that explicit attention must be paid to honeypot composition if the question of bee medication is to advance. Author reply: We added a paragraph in the discussion section to address this point. Referee comment: By choosing to look at toxic effects on workers, Baracchi et al. are not able to detect possible benefits of medication on other members of the colony, specifically larvae or the queen. One can imagine that certain inputs of nicotine to the colony might have no net effects of worker survival but might allow the queen to lay more eggs or the larvae to prosper. Indeed, effects could conceivably be harmful for the foragers but still beneficial to the colony. There might also be different effects on workers that forage and those that serve as nurses. The social nature of these bees must be considered. Author reply: We agree and we stressed more clearly in the revised version that benefits from the consumption of nicotine may influence colony health and dynamics despite the lack of evident benefits for infected foragers. Referee comment: By considering nectar only, Baracchi et al. don’t consider the probability that secondary metabolites found in nectar are also likely to occur in the pollen of the same flower species. In nature, therefore, bees that choose to forage on nicotine-rich nectars are also likely to be collecting nicotine rich pollen from those flowers. To the extent that such correlations hold in nature, the larvae may be receiving very different doses than adult bees. Author reply: The argument raised by the referee is valid, and we briefly mentioned this possibility in the discussion Referee comment: In summary, it would be very illuminating, although tedious, to consider experiments that measure whole-colony health as a response variable rather than worker longevity. Author reply: We feel that considering a new set of experiments to measure whole-colony health would represent not simply an additional big experiment, but a new study itself. I nstead, we now carefully discuss all these issues. Referee comment: In the abstract, the plant family Solanaceae is misspelled. In the caption for Figure 1, “bees received” should be rephrased. I believe that there must be a serious error in Dataset 2. Unless I am missing something, the data reported for “starved” and “ ad libitum ” treatments are identical. This looks like a cut-and-paste error. Author reply: Thank you for spotting these errors. In the revised version we have fixed them. Referee comment: Column headings in the tables and data sets should be more explanatory. For example, in Table 2, experimental treatments are denoted simply as “time” and “nicotine.” Those labels are too cryptic. Author reply: As suggested by the referee we labelled more effectively the figures and the date sets Referee comment: The "Statistical Analysis" section refers to several "classical...parameters," but these are not picked up in the Results. Reconcile? Author reply: In the revised version we have made sure that the Results section addressed all the parameters mentioned in the Methods section. View more View less Competing Interests n/a reply Respond Report a concern Thomson JD. Peer Review Report For: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees? [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] . F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6717.r8036) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v1#referee-response-8036 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Click here to access the data. The problem Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly. How to fix it Save downloaded CSV file Open spreadsheet program (e.g. Excel) Click the ‘Data’ tab at the top Click the ‘From text’ icon (top left) Browse for downloaded CSV file, click ‘Import’ Ensure ‘Delimited’ radio button is selected, click ‘Next’ Check one of the appropriate delimiter checkboxes (you can visualize the formatting by looking at the data preview below these options) Click ‘Finish’ Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (1.74KB) Dataset citation: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Dataset 1 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44610) Close Click here to access the data. The problem Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly. How to fix it Save downloaded CSV file Open spreadsheet program (e.g. Excel) Click the ‘Data’ tab at the top Click the ‘From text’ icon (top left) Browse for downloaded CSV file, click ‘Import’ Ensure ‘Delimited’ radio button is selected, click ‘Next’ Check one of the appropriate delimiter checkboxes (you can visualize the formatting by looking at the data preview below these options) Click ‘Finish’ Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data Dataset citation: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Dataset 2 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6262.d48008) Close Click here to access the data. The problem Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly. How to fix it Save downloaded CSV file Open spreadsheet program (e.g. Excel) Click the ‘Data’ tab at the top Click the ‘From text’ icon (top left) Browse for downloaded CSV file, click ‘Import’ Ensure ‘Delimited’ radio button is selected, click ‘Next’ Check one of the appropriate delimiter checkboxes (you can visualize the formatting by looking at the data preview below these options) Click ‘Finish’ Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (3.40KB) Dataset citation: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Dataset 3 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44613) Close Click here to access the data. The problem Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly. How to fix it Save downloaded CSV file Open spreadsheet program (e.g. Excel) Click the ‘Data’ tab at the top Click the ‘From text’ icon (top left) Browse for downloaded CSV file, click ‘Import’ Ensure ‘Delimited’ radio button is selected, click ‘Next’ Check one of the appropriate delimiter checkboxes (you can visualize the formatting by looking at the data preview below these options) Click ‘Finish’ Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (1.92KB) Dataset citation: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Dataset 4 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44614) Close Click here to access the data. The problem Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly. How to fix it Save downloaded CSV file Open spreadsheet program (e.g. Excel) Click the ‘Data’ tab at the top Click the ‘From text’ icon (top left) Browse for downloaded CSV file, click ‘Import’ Ensure ‘Delimited’ radio button is selected, click ‘Next’ Check one of the appropriate delimiter checkboxes (you can visualize the formatting by looking at the data preview below these options) Click ‘Finish’ Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data (0.56KB) Dataset citation: Baracchi D, Brown MJF and Chittka L. Dataset 5 in: Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. F1000Research 2015, 4 :73 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.6262.d44615) Close Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Behavioural evidence for self-medication...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Baracchi D et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73", templates : { twitter : "Behavioural evidence for self-medication in bumblebees?. Baracchi D et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/4-73/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/6262/7842") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "7842"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "8035": 0, "8036": 129, "8037": 0, "8038": 0, "8262": 0, "9415": 42, "8263": 0, "10991": 0, "10992": 0, "8214": 0, "8215": 62, "8216": 86, "8764": 0, "8765": 0, "8767": 31, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "9ced6af7-2526-4213-aa59-eededdb26923"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });