Search

Host organisms show altered phenotypic reactions when parasitised, some of which result from adaptive host manipulation, a phenomenon that has long been debated. Here, we provide an overview and discuss the rationale in distinguishing adaptive versus nonadaptive host behavioural manipulation. We discuss Poulin's criteria of adaptive host behavioural manipulation within the context of Tinbergen's four questions of ethology, while highlighting the importance of both the proximate and evolutionary explanations of such traits. We also provide guidelines for future studies exploring the adaptiveness of host behavioural manipulation. Through this article, we seek to encourage researchers to consider both the proximate and ultimate causes of host behavioural manipulation to infer on the adaptiveness of such traits., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In an era where some find fake news around every corner, the use of sensationalism has inevitably found its way into the scientific literature. This is especially the case for host manipulation by parasites, a phenomenon in which a parasite causes remarkable change in the appearance or behaviour of its host. This concept, which has deservedly garnered popular interest throughout the world in recent years, is nearly 50 years old. In the past two decades, the use of scientific metaphors, including anthropomorphisms and science fiction, to describe host manipulation has become more and more prevalent. It is possible that the repeated use of such catchy, yet misleading words in both the popular media and the scientific literature could unintentionally hamper our understanding of the complexity and extent of host manipulation, ultimately shaping its narrative in part or in full. In this commentary, the impacts of exaggerating host manipulation are brought to light by examining trends in the use of embellishing words. By looking at key examples of exaggerated claims from widely reported host–parasite systems found in the recent scientific literature, it would appear that some of the fiction surrounding host manipulation has since become fact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mermithids (phylum Nematoda) and hairworms (phylum Nematomorpha) somehow drive their arthropod hosts into water, which is essential for the worms' survival after egression. The mechanisms behind this behavioural change have been investigated in hairworms, but not in mermithids. Establishing a similar mechanistic basis for host behavioural change between these two distantly related parasitic groups would provide strong convergent evidence for adaptive manipulation and insight into how these parasites modify and/or create behaviour. Here, we search for this convergence, and also contrast changes in physiology between hosts infected with immature and mature mermithids to provide the first ontogenetic evidence for adaptive manipulation by disentangling host response and pathology from the parasite's apparent manipulative effects. We used SWATH-mass spectrometry on brains of Forficula auricularia (earwig) and Bellorchestia quoyana (sandhopper), infected with the mermithids Mermis nigrescens and Thaumamermis zealandica, respectively, at both immature and mature stages of infection, to quantify proteomic changes resulting from mermithid infection. Across both hosts (and hairworm-infected hosts, from earlier studies), the general function of dysregulated proteins was conserved. Proteins involved in energy generation/mobilization were dysregulated, corroborating reports of erratic/hyperactive behaviour in infected hosts. Dysregulated proteins involved in axon/dendrite and synapse modulation were also common to all hosts, suggesting neuronal manipulation is involved in inducing positive hydrotaxis. Furthermore, downregulation of CamKII and associated proteins suggest manipulation of memory also contributes to the behavioural shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]