Body size affects immune cell proportions in birds and non-volant mammals, but not bats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powered flight has evolved several times in vertebrates and constrains morphology and physiology in ways that likely have shaped how organisms cope with infections. Some of these constraints probably have impacts on aspects of immunology, such that larger fliers might prioritize risk reduction and safety. Addressing how the evolution of flight may have driven relationships between body size and immunity could be particularly informative for understanding the propensity of some taxa to harbor many virulent and sometimes zoonotic pathogens without showing clinical disease. Here, we used a comparative framework to quantify scaling relationships between body mass and the proportions of two types of white blood cells - lymphocytes and granulocytes (neutrophils/heterophils) - across 63 bat species, 400 bird species and 251 non-volant mammal species. By using phylogenetically informed statistical models on field-collected data from wild Neotropical bats and from captive bats, non-volant mammals and birds, we show that lymphocyte and neutrophil proportions do not vary systematically with body mass among bats. In contrast, larger birds and non-volant mammals have disproportionately higher granulocyte proportions than expected for their body size. Our inability to distinguish bat lymphocyte scaling from birds and bat granulocyte scaling from all other taxa suggests there may be other ecological explanations (i.e. not flight related) for the cell proportion scaling patterns. Future comparative studies of wild bats, birds and non-volant mammals of similar body mass should aim to further differentiate evolutionary effects and other aspects of life history on immune defense and its role in the tolerance of (zoonotic) infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".