Abstract
Sickness behaviours are often interpreted as adaptive host responses that reallocate resources from performance to defence. Anorexia - a reduction in food intake - is one of the most frequently cited examples, yet evidence across insects is variable and rarely separates the effects of wounding, immune stimulation, and live infection. Here we use a factorial design in Drosophila melanogaster to disentangle these components and quantify both feeding amount and macronutrient choice during the first four hours following acute bacterial challenge. Using the FlyPAD system, we recorded cumulative sips from protein and carbohydrate rich diets in young (2-4 days old) and older (22-24 days old) male and female flies. We compared naïve flies to those injured, immune stimulated with heat-killed Pseudomonas entomophila, or infected with live P. entomophila. Across sexes and ages, neither live infection nor sterile immune stimulation reduced total food intake during the first 4 h; notably, in old females and young males, live infection increased feeding. In contrast, immune stimulation alone elicited sex and age dependent shifts in macronutrient choice: in old females, injury and immune stimulation reduced protein preference relative to naïve, whereas in old males they increased it. Thus, ‘sickness feeding’ in Drosophila manifests primarily as an increase in feeing rate or a host driven macronutrient rebalancing rather than anorexia.
Full text
2,345 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Sickness behaviours are often interpreted as adaptive host responses that reallocate resources from performance to defence. Anorexia - a reduction in food intake - is one of the most frequently cited examples, yet evidence across insects is variable and rarely separates the effects of wounding, immune stimulation, and live infection. Here we use a factorial design in Drosophila melanogaster to disentangle these components and quantify both feeding amount and macronutrient choice during the first four hours following acute bacterial challenge. Using the FlyPAD system, we recorded cumulative sips from protein and carbohydrate rich diets in young (2-4 days old) and older (22-24 days old) male and female flies. We compared naïve flies to those injured, immune stimulated with heat-killed Pseudomonas entomophila, or infected with live P. entomophila. Across sexes and ages, neither live infection nor sterile immune stimulation reduced total food intake during the first 4 h; notably, in old females and young males, live infection increased feeding. In contrast, immune stimulation alone elicited sex and age dependent shifts in macronutrient choice: in old females, injury and immune stimulation reduced protein preference relative to naïve, whereas in old males they increased it. Thus, ‘sickness feeding’ in Drosophila manifests primarily as an increase in feeing rate or a host driven macronutrient rebalancing rather than anorexia.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2HM27
Behavior and Ethology, Entomology, Integrative Biology, Zoology
sickness behaviour, anorexia, protein, carbohydrate, infection, feeding, behavioural immunity
Published: 2026-04-10 06:54
Last Updated: 2026-04-10 06:54
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
The raw data and full analysis script accompanying the dataset is available in supplementary material.
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.