Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 23:7:44837.
doi: 10.1038/srep44837.

Cheetahs have a stronger constitutive innate immunity than leopards

Sonja K Heinrich  1 , Heribert Hofer  1 , Alexandre Courtiol  2 , Jörg Melzheimer  1 , Martin Dehnhard  3 , Gábor Á Czirják  4 , Bettina Wachter  1
Affiliations

Cheetahs have a stronger constitutive innate immunity than leopards

Sonja K Heinrich et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

As a textbook case for the importance of genetics in conservation, absence of genetic variability at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) is thought to endanger species viability, since it is considered crucial for pathogen resistance. An alternative view of the immune system inspired by life history theory posits that a strong response should evolve in other components of the immune system if there is little variation in the MHC. In contrast to the leopard (Panthera pardus), the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) has a relatively low genetic variability at the MHC, yet free-ranging cheetahs are healthy. By comparing the functional competence of the humoral immune system of both species in sympatric populations in Namibia, we demonstrate that cheetahs have a higher constitutive innate but lower induced innate and adaptive immunity than leopards. We conclude (1) immunocompetence of cheetahs is higher than previously thought; (2) studying both innate and adaptive components of immune systems will enrich conservation science.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Immune differences between cheetahs and leopards.
Position of all cheetahs (small circles) and leopards (plus signs) projected into the space defined by the first two principal components (PC1 in x-axis and PC2 in y-axis) of a principal component analysis performed on all six immune parameters. Together PC1 and PC2 capture nearly 64% of the total variance. Arrows represent the contribution of each immune parameter to PC1 and PC2. For each species, 1.5 inertia ellipses are depicted.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pairwise comparison of immune parameters of cheetahs with leopards.
(a) Immunoglobulin G concentration (b) Serum amyloid A (SAA) concentration (c) Bacterial killing assay (BKA) ranks (d) Lysozyme concentration, (e) Haemagglutination titer (f) Haemolysis titer. (a) is part of the adaptive immunity, (b) of the induced innate immunity and (c–f) are part of the constitutive innate immunity. Boxplots depict medians with 25% and 75% quartiles, P-values are indicated above the bars and samples sizes above the graphs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Salafsky N. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 16, 1469–1479 (2002).
    1. Kareiva P. & Marvier M. What is conservation science? Bioscience 62, 962–969 (2012).
    1. Wedekind C. Sexual selection and life‐history decisions: implications for supportive breeding and the management of captive populations. Conserv. Biol. 16, 1204–1211 (2002).
    1. Davies N. B., Krebs J. R. & West S. A. An introduction to behavioural ecology, 4 edn. (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2012).
    1. Salafsky N. & Margoluis R. A. Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects(Island Press, Washington D.C., 1998).

Publication types

Substances