Animals commonly harbor gut-associated microbial communities (Engel and Moran, 2013; Moran et al., 2019). Patterns of recurring gut microbial communities have been described for many animal groups (Brune and Dietrich, 2015; Kwong et al., 2017; Ochman et al., 2010). The processes generating these patterns are however often not well understood. They might result from host filtering (Mazel et al., 2018), a shared evolutionary history between gut-associated microbes and their hosts (Moeller et al., 2016) involving microbial adaptations to the host environment (McFall-Ngai et al., 2013), simply be a byproduct of similar host dietary preferences (Anderson et al., 2012; Hammer et al., 2017), or result from interactions between microbes in the gut-associated microbial community (Brinker et al., 2019; García-Bayona and Comstock, 2018).

Food is an important environmental source of microbial gut associates (Blum et al., 2013; Broderick and Lemaitre, 2012; David et al., 2014; Hammer et al., 2017; Perez-Cobas et al., 2015; Pais et al., 2018) but also poses a challenge, the need to discriminate between harmful and beneficial microbes, as food may contain microbes that produce toxic chemicals or that are pathogenic (Burkepile et al., 2006; Demain and Fang, 2000; Janzen, 1977; Trienens et al., 2010). In social animals, control of harmful microbes in food while at the same time allowing the acquisition and transmission of beneficial microbes from and with food, is likely especially important. Eusocial Hymenoptera not only transport and store food in their stomach, the crop, but also distribute food to members of their colony via trophallaxis, i.e. the regurgitation of crop content from donor individuals to receiver individuals through mouth-to-mouth feeding (Gernat et al., 2018; Greenwald et al., 2018; LeBoeuf et al., 2016). While trophallaxis can facilitate the transmission of beneficial microbes, it can also entail significant costs, as it might open the door to unwanted microbial opportunists and pathogens that can take advantage of these transmission routes (Onchuru et al., 2018; Salem et al., 2015).

Here we investigate how formicine ants, specifically the Florida carpenter ant Camponotus floridanus, solve the challenge to control harmful microbes in their food while allowing acquisition and transmission of beneficial microbes from and with their food. Apart from specialized intracellular endosymbionts associated with the midgut in the ant tribe Camponotini (Degnan et al., 2004; Feldhaar et al., 2007; Russell et al., 2017; Williams and Wernegreen, 2015), formicine ant species have only low abundances of microbial associates in their gut lumen but carry members of the bacterial family Acetobacteraceae as a recurring part of their gut microbiota (Brown and Wernegreen, 2016; Chua et al., 2018; He et al., 2011; Ivens et al., 2018; Russell et al., 2017). Some formicine gut-associated Acetobacteraceae show signs of genomic and metabolic adaptations to their host environment indicating coevolution and mutual benefit (Brown and Wernegreen, 2019; Chua et al., 2020). But the recurrent presence of Acetobacteraceae in the gut of formicine ants potentially also reflects the direct transmission of bacteria among individuals, selective uptake on the part of the ants, specific adaptations for colonizing ant guts on the part of the bacteria, or some combination of all three (Engel and Moran, 2013).

Formicine ant species possess a highly acidic poison gland secretion containing formic acid as its main component (Lopez et al., 1993; Osman and Brander, 1961; Schmidt, 1986). Although the poison is presumably foremost used as a defensive weapon (Osman and Kloft, 1961), it is also distributed to the environment of these ants as an external immune defense trait (sensu Otti et al., 2014) to protect their offspring and the nest and to limit disease spread within the society (see references in Tragust, 2016; Brütsch et al., 2017; Pull et al., 2018). To this end, ants take up their poison from the acidopore, the opening of the poison gland at the gaster tip, into their mouth (Tragust et al., 2013) during a specialized behavior existing only in a subset of ant families among all Hymenopterans (Basibuyuk and Quicke, 1999; Farish, 1972), termed acidopore grooming.

Here we first investigate whether the poison is also swallowed during acidopore grooming in C. floridanus and seven other formicine ant species from three genera in a comparative survey. In survival experiments and in in vitro and in vivo bacterial viability and growth experiments, we then investigate whether swallowing of the poison can serve gut microbial control and may prevent bacterial pathogen infection. Complementing these experiments, we also test whether poison swallowing has the potential to limit pathogen transmission during trophallactic food exchange. Finally, we explore whether swallowing of the poison acts as a microbial filter that is permissible to gut colonization by bacteria from the family Acetobacteraceae.

In this study, we investigated how formicine ants solve the challenge to control harmful microbes in their food while at the same time allowing acquisition and transmission of beneficial microbes from and with their food. We found that formicine ants swallow their antimicrobial, highly acidic poison gland secretion during the behavior of acidopore grooming. The resulting acidic environment in their stomach, the crop, can protect formicine ants from food borne bacterial pathogens while at the same time allowing the acquisition and establishment of members of the bacterial family Acetobacteraceae, a recurring part of the gut microbiota of formicine ants.

Highly acidic stomach lumens are ubiquitous in higher vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (Beasley et al., 2015; Koelz, 1992). In insects, highly acidic gut regions have so far only rarely been described from the midgut (Chapman, 2013; Holtof et al., 2019). The mechanisms responsible for the creation of a gut lumen compartment with a certain pH are often unknown in insects (Harrison, 2001), but in principle, highly acidic gut regions in insects may, similar to vertebrates (Hersey and Sachs, 1995), be generated through physiological mechanisms (Matthews, 2017; Miguel-Aliaga et al., 2018; Onken and Moffett, 2017). Alternatively, acidic derivatives of gut-associated microbes (Ratzke et al., 2018, Ratzke and Gore, 2018, Wolfe, 2005) or acidic gland secretions (Blum, 1996; Morgan, 2008; Vander Meer, 2012) might contribute to the insect gut pH. In agreement with the latter, the results of our study show that formicine ants maintain a highly acidic baseline pH in their stomach, the crop, through swallowing of their poison gland secretion during acidopore grooming. Interestingly, although we found that a higher crop acidity was observed in all formicine ants in our comparative survey when they had access to their poison, we also found that crop acidity was highly variable in ants with and without access to their poison. While a variable crop acidity in ants without access to their poison could indicate the existence of additional internal or external sources that maintain crop acidity, a variable crop acidity in ants with access to their poison could indicate species specific differences in acidopore grooming, in the composition of the poison gland secretion or in optimal crop acidity. Future studies will need to explore these possibilities.

Sanitation of food through the addition of organic acids or through acidic fermentation is frequently practiced by humans (Cherrington et al., 1991; Hirshfield et al., 2003; Theron and Rykers Lues, 2010) and sanitation of food with antimicrobials from different sources is ubiquitous in animals that provision food to their offspring or that store, cultivate, develop or live in food (Currie et al., 1999; Herzner et al., 2013; Herzner and Strohm, 2007; Joop et al., 2014; Mueller et al., 2005; Vander Wall, 1990). A microbial control function of poison acidified crops in formicine ants to sanitize ingested food is supported by our survival experiments and our in vivo and in vitro bacterial growth and viability experiments. There we found that access to the poison improved survival of formicine ants after feeding on pathogen contaminated food. We also found that pathogenic and opportunistic bacteria were quickly inhibited in the crop when ingested with food and could not establish in the midgut. Although our data suggests that this is likely due to the sensitivity of these bacteria to acidic environments, our evidence for this is only indirect. At present it is unclear whether the acidic environment in the crop is sufficient to protect formicine ants and to inhibit pathogenic and opportunistic microbes ingested with food or whether acidic conditions act in concert with other factors. Studies in vertebrates and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster have shown that acidic gut regions together with immune system effectors serve microbial control and prevent infection by oral pathogens (Giannella et al., 1972; Howden and Hunt, 1987; Martinsen et al., 2005; Overend et al., 2016; Rakoff-Nahoum et al., 2004; Slack et al., 2009; Tennant et al., 2008; Watnick and Jugder, 2020). Concordantly, previous studies investigating formicine ant trophallactic fluids Hamilton et al., 2011; LeBoeuf et al., 2016 found the presence of proteins related to cathepsin D, a lysosomal aspartic protease that can exhibit antibacterial effector activity and the proteolytic production of antimicrobial peptides (Ning et al., 2018). Future studies will therefore need to disentangle the relative contributions of crop acidity and immune system effectors released into the gut lumen to the improved survival of formicine ants in the face of pathogen contaminated food and to the microbe inhibitory action of poison acidified crops in formicine ants.

In addition to improving their own survival, the ability of donor ants to access their poison also improved the survival of receiver ants without access to their poison following trophallactic exchange of pathogen-contaminated food. Acidic crop lumens might therefore act as a barrier to disease spread in formicine ant societies, alleviating the cost of sharing pathogen contaminated food (Onchuru et al., 2018; Salem et al., 2015) and counteracting the generally increased risk of pathogen exposure and transmission associated with group-living (Alexander, 1974; Boomsma et al., 2005; Kappeler et al., 2015). Although food distribution via trophallaxis is a dynamic process governed by many different factors (Buffin et al., 2009; Buffin et al., 2011; Greenwald et al., 2015; Sendova-Franks et al., 2010), the technological advances in recent years to track multiple individuals of a group simultaneously over time (Gernat et al., 2018; Greenwald et al., 2015; Imirzian et al., 2019; Stroeymeyt et al., 2018), will make it possible to clarify the contribution of acidic crop lumens to disease spread prevention in formicine ant societies.

Acidic crop lumens might not only serve microbial control but might also act as a chemical filter for microbes, working selectively against pathogenic or opportunistic bacteria but allowing entry and establishment of species from the bacteria family Acetobacteraceae. We found that, compared to a bacterial pathogen, a bacterial member of the Acetobacteraceae was not only better able to withstand acidic conditions created with formic acid in vitro but was able to establish itself in the midgut of formicine ants in vivo. This suggests that host filtering of microbes (Mazel et al., 2018) via acidic crop lumens might explain at least part of the recurrent presence of Acetobacteraceae in the gut of formicine ants and the otherwise reduced microbial diversity and abundance of gut-associated microbes in formicine ants (Brown and Wernegreen, 2016; Brown and Wernegreen, 2019; Chua et al., 2018; Chua et al., 2020; Ivens et al., 2018; Russell et al., 2017).

Though not formally established (see Mushegian and Ebert, 2016), recent studies indicate a mutualistic relationship between formicine ants, and their gut-associated Acetobacteraceae (Brown and Wernegreen, 2019; Chua et al., 2020). Thus, the creation of an acidic crop environment in formicine ants that is easier to endure if colonizing microbes are mutualists agrees with the concept of screening as a mechanism to choose microbial partners out of a pool of environmental microbes (Archetti et al., 2011a; Archetti et al., 2011b; Biedermann and Kaltenpoth, 2014; Scheuring and Yu, 2012). Contrary to signalling, where costly information is displayed to partners, in screening a costly environment is imposed on partners that excludes all but high-quality ones. Partner choice in a number of cross-kingdom mutualisms is readily explained by screening (see examples in Archetti et al., 2011a; Archetti et al., 2011b; Biedermann and Kaltenpoth, 2014; Scheuring and Yu, 2012) but experimental evidence is so far limited in insect-microbe associations (Innocent et al., 2018; Itoh et al., 2019; Ranger et al., 2018). Although our experiments can only hint at screening as a means of partner choice in formicine ants, the results of our study would provide support for the prediction that screening is more likely to evolve from a host’s defense trait against parasites (Archetti et al., 2011a; Archetti et al., 2011b), that is, the highly acidic, antimicrobial poison that creates a selective environment for microbes. Our study might therefore not only provide evidence that the well-established cross talk between the immune system and gut-associated microbes in vertebrates and invertebrates (Chu and Mazmanian, 2013; Rakoff-Nahoum et al., 2004; Slack et al., 2009; Watnick and Jugder, 2020; Xiao et al., 2019) can hold for a broader range of immune defense traits (sensu Otti et al., 2014) but also that this cross talk can be realized through signals (Fischbach and Segre, 2016; Moura-Alves et al., 2019; Villena et al., 2018) and through screening.

Overall, our study provides evidence that poison acidified crop lumens of formicine ants can act as a chemical filter for control and selection of microbes ingested with food. Poison acidified formicine crops might thus contribute to the ecological and evolutionary success of this group of insects by alleviating the increased risk of pathogen exposure and transmission associated with group living but allowing the acquisition and transmission of microbial mutualists. Similar microbial filters likely represent a widespread theme to manage harmful and beneficial host-associated microbes but have so far only partly been uncovered in a few animal systems (Cardoza et al., 2006; Duarte et al., 2018; Sapountzis et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2008; Shukla et al., 2018a; Shukla et al., 2018b; Vogel et al., 2017).

The authors declare that all data supporting the findings of this study and all code required to reproduce the analyses and figures of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information and have been made publicly available at the DRYAD digital repository under thehttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k0p2ngf4v.

1. 1. Tragust S

   (2020) Dryad Digital Repository

   Formicine ants swallow their highly acidic poison for gut microbial selection and control.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k0p2ngf4v

1. 1. Alexander RD

   (1974) The evolution of social behavior

   Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5:325–383.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.05.110174.001545

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Anderson KE
   2. Russell JA
   3. Moreau CS
   4. Kautz S
   5. Sullam KE
   6. Hu Y
   7. Basinger U
   8. Mott BM
   9. Buck N
   10. Wheeler DE

   (2012) Highly similar microbial communities are shared among related and trophically similar ant species

   Molecular Ecology 21:2282–2296.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05464.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Archetti M
   2. Scheuring I
   3. Hoffman M
   4. Frederickson ME
   5. Pierce NE
   6. Yu DW

   (2011a) Economic game theory for mutualism and cooperation

   Ecology Letters 14:1300–1312.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01697.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Archetti M
   2. Ubeda F
   3. Fudenberg D
   4. Green J
   5. Pierce NE
   6. Yu DW

   (2011b) Let the right one in: a microeconomic approach to partner choice in mutualisms

   The American Naturalist 177:75–85.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/657622

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Basibuyuk HH
   2. Quicke DLJ

   (1999) Grooming behaviours in the hymenoptera (Insecta): potential phylogenetic significance

   Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 125:349–382.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1999.tb00597.x

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bates D
   2. Maechler M
   3. Bolker B
   4. Walker S

   (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4

   Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48.

   https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Beasley DE
   2. Koltz AM
   3. Lambert JE
   4. Fierer N
   5. Dunn RR

   (2015) The evolution of stomach acidity and its relevance to the human microbiome

   PLOS ONE 10:e0134116.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134116

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bhatkar A
   2. Whitcomb WH

   (1970) Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants

   The Florida Entomologist 53:229–232.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/3493193

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Biedermann PH
   2. Kaltenpoth M

   (2014) New synthesis: the chemistry of partner choice in insect-microbe mutualisms

   Journal of Chemical Ecology 40:99.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-014-0382-8

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blount ZD

    (2015) The unexhausted potential of E. coli

    eLife 4:e05826.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05826

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Blum MS

    (1996) Semiochemical parsimony in the arthropoda

    Annual Review of Entomology 41:353–374.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.002033

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Blum JE
    2. Fischer CN
    3. Miles J
    4. Handelsman J

    (2013) Frequent replenishment sustains the beneficial microbiome of Drosophila melanogaster

    mBio 4:e00860.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00860-13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Boomsma JJ
    2. Schmid-Hempel P
    3. Hughes WOH

    (2005) Life histories and parasite pressure across the major groups of social insects

    In: Fellowes M. H. G, Rolff J, editors. Insect Evolutionary Ecology. CABI. pp. 1345–1346.

    https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0448

    • Google Scholar
14. Book

    1. Bretz F
    2. Hothorn T
    3. Westfall P

    (2011) Multiple Comparisons Using R

    CRC Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420010909

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Brinker P
    2. Fontaine MC
    3. Beukeboom LW
    4. Falcao Salles J

    (2019) Host, symbionts, and the microbiome: the missing tripartite interaction

    Trends in Microbiology 27:480–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.02.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Broderick NA
    2. Lemaitre B

    (2012) Gut-associated microbes of Drosophila melanogaster

    Gut Microbes 3:307–321.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.19896

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Brooks ME
    2. Kristensen K
    3. Benthem KJ
    4. Magnusson A
    5. Berg CW
    6. Nielsen A
    7. Skaug HJ
    8. Mächler M
    9. Bolker BM

    (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for Zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling

    The R Journal 9:378.

    https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Brown BP
    2. Wernegreen JJ

    (2016) Deep divergence and rapid evolutionary rates in gut-associated Acetobacteraceae of ants

    BMC Microbiology 16:e140.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0721-8

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Brown BP
    2. Wernegreen JJ

    (2019) Genomic erosion and extensive horizontal gene transfer in gut-associated Acetobacteraceae

    BMC Genomics 20:e472.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5844-5

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Brune A
    2. Dietrich C

    (2015) The gut Microbiota of termites: digesting the diversity in the light of ecology and evolution

    Annual Review of Microbiology 69:145–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-092412-155715

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Brütsch T
    2. Jaffuel G
    3. Vallat A
    4. Turlings TC
    5. Chapuisat M

    (2017) Wood ants produce a potent antimicrobial agent by applying formic acid on tree-collected resin

    Ecology and Evolution 7:2249–2254.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2834

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Buffin A
    2. Denis D
    3. Van Simaeys G
    4. Goldman S
    5. Deneubourg JL

    (2009) Feeding and stocking up: radio-labelled food reveals exchange patterns in ants

    PLOS ONE 4:e5919.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005919

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Buffin A
    2. Mailleux A-C
    3. Detrain C
    4. Deneubourg JL

    (2011) Trophallaxis in Lasius Niger: a variable frequency and constant duration for three food types

    Insectes Sociaux 58:177–183.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-010-0133-y

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Burkepile DE
    2. Parker JD
    3. Woodson CB
    4. Mills HJ
    5. Kubanek J
    6. Sobecky PA
    7. Hay ME

    (2006) Chemically mediated competition between microbes and animals: microbes as consumers in food webs

    Ecology 87:2821–2831.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2821:CMCBMA]2.0.CO;2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. Thesis

    1. Cannon CA

    (1998)

    Nutritional ecology of the carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus (De Geer): macronutrient preference and particle consumption

    Doctor Thesis of Philosophy in Entomology, Virginia, USA.

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Cardoza YJ
    2. Klepzig KD
    3. Raffa KF

    (2006) Bacteria in oral secretions of an endophytic insect inhibit antagonistic fungi

    Ecological Entomology 31:636–645.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00829.x

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Casewell NR
    2. Wüster W
    3. Vonk FJ
    4. Harrison RA
    5. Fry BG

    (2013) Complex cocktails: the evolutionary novelty of venoms

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:219–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. Book

    1. Chapman RF

    (2013)

    The Insects: Structure and Function

    Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Cherrington CA
    2. Hinton M
    3. Mead GC
    4. Chopra I

    (1991) Organic acids: chemistry, antibacterial activity and practical applications

    Advances in Microbial Physiology 32:87–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2911(08)60006-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Chu H
    2. Mazmanian SK

    (2013) Innate immune recognition of the Microbiota promotes host-microbial symbiosis

    Nature Immunology 14:668–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.2635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Chua K-O
    2. Song S-L
    3. Yong H-S
    4. See-Too W-S
    5. Yin W-F
    6. Chan K-G

    (2018) Microbial community composition reveals spatial variation and distinctive core microbiome of the weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina in Malaysia

    Scientific Reports 8:e10777.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29159-2

    • Google Scholar
32. Preprint

    1. Chua K-O
    2. See-too W-S
    3. Tan J-Y
    4. Song S-L
    5. Yong H-S
    6. Yin W-F
    7. Chan K-G

    (2020) Oecophyllibacter saccharovorans gen. nov. sp. nov. a bacterial symbiont of the weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina with a plasmid-borne sole rrn operon

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.15.950782

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Cooling MD
    2. Hoffmann BD
    3. Gruber MAM
    4. Lester PJ

    (2018) Indirect evidence of pathogen-associated altered oocyte production in queens of the invasive yellow crazy ant, Anoplolepis gracilipes, in Arnhem Land, Australia

    Bulletin of Entomological Research 108:451–460.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485317000967

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Crotti E
    2. Damiani C
    3. Pajoro M
    4. Gonella E
    5. Rizzi A
    6. Ricci I
    7. Negri I
    8. Scuppa P
    9. Rossi P
    10. Ballarini P
    11. Raddadi N
    12. Marzorati M
    13. Sacchi L
    14. Clementi E
    15. Genchi M
    16. Mandrioli M
    17. Bandi C
    18. Favia G
    19. Alma A
    20. Daffonchio D

    (2009) Asaia, a versatile acetic acid bacterial symbiont, capable of cross-colonizing insects of phylogenetically distant genera and orders

    Environmental Microbiology 11:3252–3264.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02048.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Currie CR
    2. Scott JA
    3. Summerbell RC
    4. Malloch D

    (1999) Fungus-growing ants use antibiotic-producing Bacteria to control garden parasites

    Nature 398:701–704.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/19519

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. David LA
    2. Maurice CF
    3. Carmody RN
    4. Gootenberg DB
    5. Button JE
    6. Wolfe BE
    7. Ling AV
    8. Devlin AS
    9. Varma Y
    10. Fischbach MA
    11. Biddinger SB
    12. Dutton RJ
    13. Turnbaugh PJ

    (2014) Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome

    Nature 505:559–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12820

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Degnan PH
    2. Lazarus AB
    3. Brock CD
    4. Wernegreen JJ

    (2004) Host-symbiont stability and fast evolutionary rates in an ant-bacterium association: cospeciation of Camponotus species and their endosymbionts, candidatus blochmannia

    Systematic Biology 53:95–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490264842

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. Book

    1. Demain AL
    2. Fang A

    (2000) The Natural Functions of Secondary Metabolites

    In: Fiechter A, editors. History of Modern Biotechnology I. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 1–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44964-7_1

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Duarte A
    2. Welch M
    3. Swannack C
    4. Wagner J
    5. Kilner RM

    (2018) Strategies for managing rival bacterial communities: lessons from burying beetles

    Journal of Animal Ecology 87:414–427.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12725

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Eisner T
    2. Happ GM

    (1962) The infrabuccal pocket of a formicine ant: a social filtration device

    Psyche: A Journal of Entomology 69:107–116.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/1962/25068

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Eisner T
    2. Wilson EO

    (1952) The morphology of the proventriculus of a formicine ant

    Psyche: A Journal of Entomology 59:47–60.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/1952/14806

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Engel P
    2. Moran NA

    (2013) The gut Microbiota of insects - diversity in structure and function

    FEMS Microbiology Reviews 37:699–735.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Farish DJ

    (1972) The evolutionary implications of qualitative variation in the grooming behaviour of the hymenoptera (Insecta)

    Animal Behaviour 20:662–676.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(72)80139-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Favia G
    2. Ricci I
    3. Damiani C
    4. Raddadi N
    5. Crotti E
    6. Marzorati M
    7. Rizzi A
    8. Urso R
    9. Brusetti L
    10. Borin S
    11. Mora D
    12. Scuppa P
    13. Pasqualini L
    14. Clementi E
    15. Genchi M
    16. Corona S
    17. Negri I
    18. Grandi G
    19. Alma A
    20. Kramer L
    21. Esposito F
    22. Bandi C
    23. Sacchi L
    24. Daffonchio D

    (2007) Bacteria of the genus Asaia stably associate with anopheles stephensi, an Asian malarial mosquito vector

    PNAS 104:9047–9051.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610451104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Feldhaar H
    2. Straka J
    3. Krischke M
    4. Berthold K
    5. Stoll S
    6. Mueller MJ
    7. Gross R

    (2007) Nutritional upgrading for omnivorous carpenter ants by the endosymbiont Blochmannia

    BMC Biology 5:48.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-5-48

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Fischbach MA
    2. Segre JA

    (2016) Signaling in Host-Associated microbial communities

    Cell 164:1288–1300.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Flyg C
    2. Kenne K
    3. Boman HG

    (1980) Insect pathogenic properties of Serratia marcescens: phage-resistant mutants with a decreased resistance to Cecropia immunity and a decreased virulence to Drosophila

    Microbiology 120:173–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-120-1-173

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. García-Bayona L
    2. Comstock LE

    (2018) Bacterial antagonism in host-associated microbial communities

    Science 361:eaat2456.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2456

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Gernat T
    2. Rao VD
    3. Middendorf M
    4. Dankowicz H
    5. Goldenfeld N
    6. Robinson GE

    (2018) Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spreading dynamics in honeybee social networks

    PNAS 115:1433–1438.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713568115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Giannella RA
    2. Broitman SA
    3. Zamcheck N

    (1972) Gastric acid barrier to ingested microorganisms in man: studies in vivo and in vitro

    Gut 13:251–256.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.13.4.251

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Glancey BM
    2. Vander Meer RK
    3. Glover A
    4. Lofgren CS
    5. Vinson SB

    (1981) Filtration of microparticles from liquids ingested by the red imported fire antSolenopsis invicta buren

    Insectes Sociaux 28:395–401.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02224196

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Greenwald E
    2. Segre E
    3. Feinerman O

    (2015) Ant trophallactic networks: simultaneous measurement of interaction patterns and food dissemination

    Scientific Reports 5:12496.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12496

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Greenwald EE
    2. Baltiansky L
    3. Feinerman O

    (2018) Individual crop loads provide local control for collective food intake in ant colonies

    eLife 7:e31730.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31730

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. Book

    1. Grimont F
    2. Grimont PAD

    (2006) The genus Serratia

    In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E, editors. The Prokaryotes. New York: Springer. pp. 219–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30746-X_11

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Hamilton C
    2. Lejeune BT
    3. Rosengaus RB

    (2011) Trophallaxis and prophylaxis: social immunity in the carpenter ant Camponotus pennsylvanicus

    Biology Letters 7:89–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0466

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Hammer TJ
    2. Janzen DH
    3. Hallwachs W
    4. Jaffe SP
    5. Fierer N

    (2017) Caterpillars lack a resident gut microbiome

    PNAS 114:9641–9646.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707186114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Harrison JF

    (2001) Insect acid-base physiology

    Annual Review of Entomology 46:221–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. Software

    1. Hartig F

    (2019) DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models, version 0.2.4

    R Package.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
59. 1. He H
    2. Chen Y
    3. Zhang Y
    4. Wei C

    (2011) Bacteria associated with gut lumen of Camponotus japonicus mayr

    Environmental Entomology 40:1405–1409.

    https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11157

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Hersey SJ
    2. Sachs G

    (1995) Gastric acid secretion

    Physiological Reviews 75:155–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1995.75.1.155

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Hertle R

    (2005) The family of Serratia type pore forming toxins

    Current Protein & Peptide Science 6:313–325.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/1389203054546370

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Herzner G
    2. Schlecht A
    3. Dollhofer V
    4. Parzefall C
    5. Harrar K
    6. Kreuzer A
    7. Pilsl L
    8. Ruther J

    (2013) Larvae of the parasitoid wasp Ampulex compressa sanitize their host, the american cockroach, with a blend of antimicrobials

    PNAS 110:1369–1374.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213384110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Herzner G
    2. Strohm E

    (2007) Fighting fungi with physics: food wrapping by a solitary wasp prevents water condensation

    Current Biology 17:R46–R47.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.060

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Hirshfield IN
    2. Terzulli S
    3. O'Byrne C

    (2003) Weak organic acids: a panoply of effects on Bacteria

    Science Progress 86:245–270.

    https://doi.org/10.3184/003685003783238626

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Hite JL
    2. Pfenning AC
    3. Cressler CE

    (2020) Starving the enemy? feeding behavior shapes Host-Parasite interactions

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35:68–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Holtof M
    2. Lenaerts C
    3. Cullen D
    4. Vanden Broeck J

    (2019) Extracellular nutrient digestion and absorption in the insect gut

    Cell and Tissue Research 377:397–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-019-03031-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Howard DF
    2. Tschinkel WR

    (1981) The flow of food in colonies of the fire ant, Solenopsis invicta: a multifactorial study

    Physiological Entomology 6:297–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1981.tb00274.x

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Howden CW
    2. Hunt RH

    (1987) Relationship between gastric secretion and infection

    Gut 28:96–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.28.1.96

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Imirzian N
    2. Zhang Y
    3. Kurze C
    4. Loreto RG
    5. Chen DZ
    6. Hughes DP

    (2019) Automated tracking and analysis of ant trajectories shows variation in forager exploration

    Scientific Reports 9:13246.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49655-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. Preprint

    1. Innocent T
    2. Holmes N
    3. Bassam MA
    4. Scheuring I
    5. Wilkinson B
    6. Hutchings MI
    7. Boomsma JJ
    8. Yu DW

    (2018) Experimental demonstration that screening can enable the environmental recruitment of a defensive microbiome

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/375634

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Itoh H
    2. Jang S
    3. Takeshita K
    4. Ohbayashi T
    5. Ohnishi N
    6. Meng XY
    7. Mitani Y
    8. Kikuchi Y

    (2019) Host-symbiont specificity determined by microbe-microbe competition in an insect gut

    PNAS 116:22673–22682.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912397116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Ivens ABF
    2. Gadau A
    3. Kiers ET
    4. Kronauer DJC

    (2018) Can social partnerships influence the microbiome? insights from ant farmers and their trophobiont mutualists

    Molecular Ecology 27:1898–1914.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14506

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Janzen DH

    (1977) Why fruits rot, seeds mold, and meat spoils

    The American Naturalist 111:691–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/283200

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Joop G
    2. Roth O
    3. Schmid-Hempel P
    4. Kurtz J

    (2014) Experimental evolution of external immune defences in the red flour beetle

    Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27:1562–1571.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12406

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Kappeler PM
    2. Cremer S
    3. Nunn CL

    (2015) Sociality and health: impacts of sociality on disease susceptibility and transmission in animal and human societies

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370:20140116.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0116

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Kautz S
    2. Rubin BER
    3. Moreau CS

    (2013a) Bacterial infections across the ants: frequency and prevalence of Wolbachia, spiroplasma, and Asaia

    Psyche; a Journal of Entomology 2013:936341.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/936341

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Kautz S
    2. Rubin BE
    3. Russell JA
    4. Moreau CS

    (2013b) Surveying the microbiome of ants: comparing 454 pyrosequencing with traditional methods to uncover bacterial diversity

    Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79:525–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03107-12

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Kloft W

    (1960a)

    Neuere untersuchungen über die sozialen wechselbeziehungen im ameisenvolk, durchgeführt mit Radio-Isotopen

    Zoologische Beiträge 5:519–556.

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Kloft W

    (1960b) Untersuchungen mit radioaktiven isotopen an waldameisen

    Entomophaga 5:33–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02376705

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Koelz HR

    (1992) Gastric acid in vertebrates

    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 27:2–6.

    https://doi.org/10.3109/00365529209095998

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Kohlmeier P
    2. Holländer K
    3. Meunier J

    (2016) Survival after pathogen exposure in group-living insects: don't forget the stress of social isolation!

    Journal of Evolutionary Biology 29:1867–1872.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12916

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. Book

    1. Komagata K
    2. Iino T
    3. Yamada Y

    (2014) The family Acetobacteraceae

    In: Rosenberg E, Delong E. F, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F, editors. The Prokaryotes: Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 163–200.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30745-1_9

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Koto A
    2. Mersch D
    3. Hollis B
    4. Keller L

    (2015) Social isolation causes mortality by disrupting energy homeostasis in ants

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69:583–591.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1869-6

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Kwong WK
    2. Medina LA
    3. Koch H
    4. Sing KW
    5. Soh EJY
    6. Ascher JS
    7. Jaffé R
    8. Moran NA

    (2017) Dynamic microbiome evolution in social bees

    Science Advances 3:e1600513.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600513

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Lanan MC
    2. Rodrigues PA
    3. Agellon A
    4. Jansma P
    5. Wheeler DE

    (2016) A bacterial filter protects and structures the gut microbiome of an insect

    The ISME Journal 10:1866–1876.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.264

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. LeBoeuf AC
    2. Waridel P
    3. Brent CS
    4. Gonçalves AN
    5. Menin L
    6. Ortiz D
    7. Riba-Grognuz O
    8. Koto A
    9. Soares ZG
    10. Privman E
    11. Miska EA
    12. Benton R
    13. Keller L

    (2016) Oral transfer of chemical cues, growth proteins and hormones in social insects

    eLife 5:e20375.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20375

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Little AE
    2. Murakami T
    3. Mueller UG
    4. Currie CR

    (2006) Defending against parasites: fungus-growing ants combine specialized behaviours and microbial symbionts to protect their fungus gardens

    Biology Letters 2:12–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0371

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Lopez LC
    2. Morgan ED
    3. Brand JM

    (1993) Hexadecanol and hexadecyl formate in the venom gland of formicine ants

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 341:177–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1993.0101

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Lund P
    2. Tramonti A
    3. De Biase D

    (2014) Coping with low pH: molecular strategies in neutralophilic Bacteria

    FEMS Microbiology Reviews 38:1091–1125.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12076

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Mamlouk D
    2. Gullo M

    (2013) Acetic acid Bacteria: physiology and carbon sources oxidation

    Indian Journal of Microbiology 53:377–384.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-013-0414-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Markin GP

    (1970) Food distribution within laboratory colonies of the argentine ant,tridomyrmex humilis (Mayr)

    Insectes Sociaux 17:127–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02223074

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Martinsen TC
    2. Bergh K
    3. Waldum HL

    (2005) Gastric juice: a barrier against infectious diseases

    Basic ; Clinical Pharmacology ; Toxicology 96:94–102.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto960202.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. Book

    1. Matthews PGD

    (2017) Acid–base regulation in insect haemolymph

    In: Weihrauch D, O’Donnell M, editors. Acid-Base Balance and Nitrogen Excretion in Invertebrates. Springer. pp. 219–238.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39617-0

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Mazel F
    2. Davis KM
    3. Loudon A
    4. Kwong WK
    5. Groussin M
    6. Parfrey LW

    (2018) Is host filtering the main driver of phylosymbiosis across the tree of life?

    mSystems 3:e00097-18.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00097-18

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. McFall-Ngai M
    2. Hadfield MG
    3. Bosch TC
    4. Carey HV
    5. Domazet-Lošo T
    6. Douglas AE
    7. Dubilier N
    8. Eberl G
    9. Fukami T
    10. Gilbert SF
    11. Hentschel U
    12. King N
    13. Kjelleberg S
    14. Knoll AH
    15. Kremer N
    16. Mazmanian SK
    17. Metcalf JL
    18. Nealson K
    19. Pierce NE
    20. Rawls JF
    21. Reid A
    22. Ruby EG
    23. Rumpho M
    24. Sanders JG
    25. Tautz D
    26. Wernegreen JJ

    (2013) Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences

    PNAS 110:3229–3236.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218525110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Miguel-Aliaga I
    2. Jasper H
    3. Lemaitre B

    (2018) Anatomy and physiology of the digestive tract of Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 210:357–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.118.300224

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Mirabito D
    2. Rosengaus RB

    (2016) A double-edged sword? the cost of proctodeal trophallaxis in termites

    Insectes Sociaux 63:135–141.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-015-0448-9

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Moeller AH
    2. Caro-Quintero A
    3. Mjungu D
    4. Georgiev AV
    5. Lonsdorf EV
    6. Muller MN
    7. Pusey AE
    8. Peeters M
    9. Hahn BH
    10. Ochman H

    (2016) Cospeciation of gut Microbiota with hominids

    Science 353:380–382.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3951

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Moran NA
    2. Ochman H
    3. Hammer TJ

    (2019) Evolutionary and ecological consequences of gut microbial communities

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 50:451–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062453

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Morgan DE

     (2008)

     Chemical sorcery for sociality: exocrine secretions of ants (Hymenoptera: formicidae)

     Myrmecological News 11:70–91.

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Moura-Alves P
     2. Puyskens A
     3. Stinn A
     4. Klemm M
     5. Guhlich-Bornhof U
     6. Dorhoi A
     7. Furkert J
     8. Kreuchwig A
     9. Protze J
     10. Lozza L
     11. Pei G
     12. Saikali P
     13. Perdomo C
     14. Mollenkopf HJ
     15. Hurwitz R
     16. Kirschhoefer F
     17. Brenner-Weiss G
     18. Weiner J
     19. Oschkinat H
     20. Kolbe M
     21. Krause G
     22. Kaufmann SHE

     (2019) Host monitoring of quorum sensing during Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection

     Science 366:eaaw1629.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1629

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Mueller UG
     2. Gerardo NM
     3. Aanen DK
     4. Six DL
     5. Schultz TR

     (2005) The evolution of agriculture in insects

     Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36:563–595.

     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102003.152626

     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Mushegian AA
     2. Ebert D

     (2016) Rethinking "mutualism" in diverse host-symbiont communities

     BioEssays 38:100–108.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500074

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Nehme NT
     2. Liégeois S
     3. Kele B
     4. Giammarinaro P
     5. Pradel E
     6. Hoffmann JA
     7. Ewbank JJ
     8. Ferrandon D

     (2007) A model of bacterial intestinal infections in Drosophila melanogaster

     PLOS Pathogens 3:e173.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030173

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Ning M
     2. Yuan M
     3. Liu M
     4. Gao Q
     5. Wei P
     6. Gu W
     7. Wang W
     8. Meng Q

     (2018) Characterization of cathepsin D from Eriocheir sinensis involved in Spiroplasma eriocheiris infection

     Developmental & Comparative Immunology 86:1–8.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2018.04.018

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Ochman H
     2. Worobey M
     3. Kuo CH
     4. Ndjango JB
     5. Peeters M
     6. Hahn BH
     7. Hugenholtz P

     (2010) Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities

     PLOS Biology 8:e1000546.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000546

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Ohbayashi T
     2. Takeshita K
     3. Kitagawa W
     4. Nikoh N
     5. Koga R
     6. Meng XY
     7. Tago K
     8. Hori T
     9. Hayatsu M
     10. Asano K
     11. Kamagata Y
     12. Lee BL
     13. Fukatsu T
     14. Kikuchi Y

     (2015) Insect's intestinal organ for symbiont sorting

     PNAS 112:E5179–E5188.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511454112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Onchuru TO
     2. Javier Martinez A
     3. Ingham CS
     4. Kaltenpoth M

     (2018) Transmission of mutualistic Bacteria in social and gregarious insects

     Current Opinion in Insect Science 28:50–58.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.05.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. Book

     1. Onken H
     2. Moffett DF

     (2017) Acid–base loops in insect larvae with extremely alkaline midgut regions

     In: Weihrauch D, O’Donnell M, editors. Acid-Base Balance and Nitrogen Excretion in Invertebrates. Springer. pp. 239–260.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39617-0_9

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Osman MF
     2. Brander J

     (1961) Weitere beiträge zur kenntnis der chemischen zusammensetzung des giftes von ameisen aus der gattung Formica

     Zeitschrift Für Naturforschung Part B-Chemie Biochemie Biophysik Biologie Und Verwandten Gebiete, B 16:749–753.

     https://doi.org/10.1515/znb-1961-1108

     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Osman MFH
     2. Kloft W

     (1961) Untersuchungen zur insektiziden wirkung der verschiedenen bestandteile des giftes der kleinen Roten WaldameiseFormica polyctena Foerst

     Insectes Sociaux 8:383–395.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02226557

     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Otti O
     2. Tragust S
     3. Feldhaar H

     (2014) Unifying external and internal immune defences

     Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29:625–634.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Overend G
     2. Luo Y
     3. Henderson L
     4. Douglas AE
     5. Davies SA
     6. Dow JAT

     (2016) Molecular mechanism and functional significance of acid generation in the Drosophila midgut

     Scientific Reports 6:27242.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27242

     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Pais IS
     2. Valente RS
     3. Sporniak M
     4. Teixeira L

     (2018) Drosophila melanogaster establishes a species-specific mutualistic interaction with stable gut-colonizing bacteria

     PLOS Biology 16:e2005710.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005710

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Perez-Cobas AE
     2. Maiques E
     3. Angelova A
     4. Carrasco P
     5. Moya A
     6. Latorre A

     (2015) Diet shapes the gut Microbiota of the omnivorous cockroach Blattella germanica

     FEMS Microbiology Ecology 91:fiv022.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv022

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Pull CD
     2. Ugelvig LV
     3. Wiesenhofer F
     4. Grasse AV
     5. Tragust S
     6. Schmitt T
     7. Brown MJ
     8. Cremer S

     (2018) Destructive disinfection of infected brood prevents systemic disease spread in ant colonies

     eLife 7:e32073.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32073

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Quinlan RJ
     2. Cherrett JM

     (1978) Studies on the role of the infrabuccal pocket of the leaf-cutting antAcromyrmex octospinosus (Reich) (Hym., Formicidae)

     Insectes Sociaux 25:237–245.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02224744

     • Google Scholar
118. Software

     1. R Development Core Team

     (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

     R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

     http://www.r-project.org
119. 1. Rakoff-Nahoum S
     2. Paglino J
     3. Eslami-Varzaneh F
     4. Edberg S
     5. Medzhitov R

     (2004) Recognition of commensal microflora by toll-like receptors is required for intestinal homeostasis

     Cell 118:229–241.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.07.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Ranger CM
     2. Biedermann PHW
     3. Phuntumart V
     4. Beligala GU
     5. Ghosh S
     6. Palmquist DE
     7. Mueller R
     8. Barnett J
     9. Schultz PB
     10. Reding ME
     11. Benz JP

     (2018) Symbiont selection via alcohol benefits fungus farming by Ambrosia beetles

     PNAS 115:4447–4452.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716852115

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Ratzka C
     2. Liang C
     3. Dandekar T
     4. Gross R
     5. Feldhaar H

     (2011) Immune response of the ant Camponotus floridanus against pathogens and its obligate mutualistic endosymbiont

     Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 41:529–536.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2011.03.002

     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Ratzke C
     2. Denk J
     3. Gore J

     (2018) Ecological suicide in microbes

     Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:867–872.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0535-1

     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Ratzke C
     2. Gore J

     (2018) Modifying and reacting to the environmental pH can drive bacterial interactions

     PLOS Biology 16:e2004248.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004248

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Russell JA
     2. Sanders JG
     3. Moreau CS

     (2017)

     Hotspots for symbiosis: function, evolution, and specificity of ant-microbe associations from trunk to tips of the ant phylogeny (Hymenoptera: formicidae)

     Myrmecological News 24:43–69.

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Salem H
     2. Florez L
     3. Gerardo N
     4. Kaltenpoth M

     (2015) An out-of-body experience: the extracellular dimension for the transmission of mutualistic Bacteria in insects

     Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20142957.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2957

     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Sapountzis P
     2. Nash DR
     3. Schiøtt M
     4. Boomsma JJ

     (2019) The evolution of abdominal microbiomes in fungus-growing ants

     Molecular Ecology 28:879–899.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14931

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Scheuring I
     2. Yu DW

     (2012) How to assemble a beneficial microbiome in three easy steps

     Ecology Letters 15:1300–1307.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01853.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. Book

     1. Schmidt JO

     (1986) Chemistry, pharmacology, and chemical ecology of ant venoms

     In: Piek T, editors. Venoms of the Hymenoptera: Biochemical, Pharmacological and Behavioral Aspects. Florida: Academic Press. pp. 1–580.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-11309-8

     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Scott JJ
     2. Oh DC
     3. Yuceer MC
     4. Klepzig KD
     5. Clardy J
     6. Currie CR

     (2008) Bacterial protection of beetle-fungus mutualism

     Science 322:63.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160423

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Sendova-Franks AB
     2. Hayward RK
     3. Wulf B
     4. Klimek T
     5. James R
     6. Planqué R
     7. Britton NF
     8. Franks NR

     (2010) Emergency networking: famine relief in ant colonies

     Animal Behaviour 79:473–485.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.035

     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Shukla SP
     2. Plata C
     3. Reichelt M
     4. Steiger S
     5. Heckel DG
     6. Kaltenpoth M
     7. Vilcinskas A
     8. Vogel H

     (2018a) Microbiome-assisted carrion preservation aids larval development in a burying beetle

     PNAS 115:11274–11279.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812808115

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Shukla SP
     2. Vogel H
     3. Heckel DG
     4. Vilcinskas A
     5. Kaltenpoth M

     (2018b) Burying beetles regulate the microbiome of carcasses and use it to transmit a core Microbiota to their offspring

     Molecular Ecology 27:1980–1991.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14269

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Slack E
     2. Hapfelmeier S
     3. Stecher B
     4. Velykoredko Y
     5. Stoel M
     6. Lawson MA
     7. Geuking MB
     8. Beutler B
     9. Tedder TF
     10. Hardt WD
     11. Bercik P
     12. Verdu EF
     13. McCoy KD
     14. Macpherson AJ

     (2009) Innate and adaptive immunity cooperate flexibly to maintain host-microbiota mutualism

     Science 325:617–620.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172747

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Stroeymeyt N
     2. Grasse AV
     3. Crespi A
     4. Mersch DP
     5. Cremer S
     6. Keller L

     (2018) Social network plasticity decreases disease transmission in a eusocial insect

     Science 362:941–945.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4793

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Stucki D
     2. Freitak D
     3. Bos N
     4. Sundström L

     (2019) Stress responses upon starvation and exposure to Bacteria in the ant Formica exsecta

     PeerJ 7:e6428.

     https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6428

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Tennant SM
     2. Hartland EL
     3. Phumoonna T
     4. Lyras D
     5. Rood JI
     6. Robins-Browne RM
     7. van Driel IR

     (2008) Influence of gastric acid on susceptibility to infection with ingested bacterial pathogens

     Infection and Immunity 76:639–645.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.01138-07

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Terra WR
     2. Ferreira C

     (1994) Insect digestive enzymes: properties, compartmentalization and function

     Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry 109:1–62.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0491(94)90141-4

     • Google Scholar
138. Software

     1. Therneau T

     (2019) coxme: Mixed Effects Cox Models, version 2.2-14

     R Package.

     http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=coxme
139. Book

     1. Theron MM
     2. Rykers Lues JF

     (2010)

     Organic Acids and Food Preservation

     CRC Press.

     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Tragust S
     2. Mitteregger B
     3. Barone V
     4. Konrad M
     5. Ugelvig LV
     6. Cremer S

     (2013) Ants disinfect fungus-exposed brood by oral uptake and spread of their poison

     Current Biology 23:76–82.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.034

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Tragust S

     (2016)

     External immune defence in ant societies (Hymenoptera: formicidae): The role of antimicrobial venom and metapleural gland secretion

     Myrmecological News 23:119–128.

     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Trienens M
     2. Keller NP
     3. Rohlfs M

     (2010) Fruit, flies and filamentous fungi - experimental analysis of animal-microbe competition using Drosophila melanogaster and Aspergillus mould as a model system

     Oikos 119:1765–1775.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18088.x

     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Vander Meer R

     (2012) Ant interactions with soil organisms and associated semiochemicals

     Journal of Chemical Ecology 38:728–745.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0140-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. Book

     1. Vander Wall SB

     (1990)

     Food Hoarding in Animals

     Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Villena J
     2. Kitazawa H
     3. Van Wees SCM
     4. Pieterse CMJ
     5. Takahashi H

     (2018) Receptors and signaling pathways for recognition of Bacteria in livestock and crops: prospects for beneficial microbes in healthy growth strategies

     Frontiers in Immunology 9:2223.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02223

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Vogel H
     2. Shukla SP
     3. Engl T
     4. Weiss B
     5. Fischer R
     6. Steiger S
     7. Heckel DG
     8. Kaltenpoth M
     9. Vilcinskas A

     (2017) The digestive and defensive basis of carcass utilization by the burying beetle and its Microbiota

     Nature Communications 8:15186.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15186

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Watnick PI
     2. Jugder BE

     (2020) Microbial control of intestinal homeostasis via enteroendocrine cell innate immune signaling

     Trends in Microbiology 28:141–149.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.09.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Williams LE
     2. Wernegreen JJ

     (2015) Genome evolution in an ancient bacteria-ant symbiosis: parallel gene loss among Blochmannia spanning the origin of the ant tribe Camponotini

     PeerJ 3:e881.

     https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.881

     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Wolfe AJ

     (2005) The acetate switch

     Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 69:12–50.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.69.1.12-50.2005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Xiao R
     2. Wang X
     3. Xie E
     4. Ji T
     5. Li X
     6. Muhammad A
     7. Yin X
     8. Hou Y
     9. Shi Z

     (2019) An IMD-like pathway mediates the intestinal immunity to modulate the homeostasis of gut Microbiota in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus Olivier (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae)

     Developmental & Comparative Immunology 97:20–27.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2019.03.013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This paper identifies a new mechanism to regulate the microbiota in ants, linking crop acidification, bacterial differential survival and immunity.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Formicine ants swallow their highly acidic poison for gut microbial selection and control" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by a Senior Editor, a Reviewing Editor, and three reviewers.

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Based on these discussions, and the individual reviews appended below, we have decided to reject your manuscript, but allow resubmission of a carefully-revised version with accompanying point-by-point response. This provides more than two months to prepare a manuscript that fully addresses the points raised by the reviewers. While this manuscript will be treated as a new submission, it will most likely be sent to the same reviewers and editors. Alternatively, if you think you will not be able to address all comments raised, we recommend you submit your manuscript for consideration elsewhere. Please note that resubmission to eLife does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Briefly, all three reviewers liked the manuscript, but agreed that there were major concerns about:

1) potential side effects of the two different methods to block acidopore access;

2) baseline pH data in the crop and assessing the temporal extent of acidopore grooming beyond the 30 minutes to explain the continued decrease in pH;

3) lack of direct evidence for a decrease in disease transmission, as there are alternative explanations for the observed results;

4) the drop in Serratia survival in the crop above pH values that would be lethal in culture;

5) and the generally high mortality in the survival assays, even in pathogen-free ants.

It seems to us that most of these points can be addressed through more careful discussion and interpretation of the results that considers alternative explanations. Some points may, however, reflect serious flaws in the experimental design (especially points 1 and 5), but we can only assess this once we have received a revision and accompanying response.

Reviewer #1:

This study investigates a very interesting hypothesis that formicine ants may voluntarily swallow their own formic acid to acidify the content of their social stomach (the crop), which could act as a filter decreasing the risk of passage of live pathogenic microbes to the midgut, while allowing acidophilic symbiotic bacteria through. This mechanism would allow ants to solve the trade-off of allowing beneficial food-borne microbes in while simultaneously blocking harmful microbes and would play an analogous role as the stomach in higher vertebrates.

Overall, the study is of very high quality and builds a compelling set of evidence in favour of their working hypothesis, and is well worth publishing.

However, I have a few questions/concerns which I would like the authors to respond to, as I am not sure how they may affect the validity of the conclusions – and I feel they definitely should be addressed explicitly in the manuscript so the reader gets a full understanding of the implication of the study.

1) The main conclusion of the paper is that formicine ants actively swallow their poison gland secretions after feeding to acidify their crop. However, results from Figure 1A shows that the acidification of the crop continues much beyond 24 hours after feeding (pH significantly lower at 0h⁺48 hours than at 0h⁺24hours). To me this suggests that the acidification of the crop involves a continuous/constant mechanism, either via a physiological production of acid within the crop, or via a constant swallowing of poison gland secretion (which may be temporarily upregulated after feeding to compensate for the food dilution effect according to Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Unfortunately, measurements of acidopore grooming frequency were stopped 30 minutes after feeding so it is difficult to evaluate how long this upregulation lasts. However, I feel that the authors should rephrase their conclusions to avoid giving the impression that poison gland grooming occurs only after feeding (or that it is the only mechanism involved).

2) Key to demonstrating that crop acidification is a direct consequence of acidopore grooming are the experiments where the ants were prevented from grooming their acidopores (FA- ants).

2a) This is such an important part of the demonstration that I feel the methodology used to prevent acidopore grooming should appear in the main text (e.g. the Results and Discussion section), and not be 'hidden' within the Materials and methods section.

2b) When reading the Materials and methods section, I realised that in the first few experiments, the ants were prevented from grooming the acidopores by being immobilised inside a pipette tip, whereas control (FA+) ants were left to move freely. In my opinion this is the most problematic part of the study, as the two treatments differ by a lot more parameters than just acidopore grooming: compared to FA+, FA- ants cannot move, are under high levels of physiological stress, cannot interact with nestmates, cannot groom other parts of their bodies,…there are therefore a lot of alternative explanations for the differences between treatments. The authors need to acknowledge this weakness in their experimental design, and justify why they conclude that acidopore grooming is the one mechanism responsible for the observed differences

2c) In the last few experiments, FA- ants were obtained using a different protocole: application of superglue onto the acidopore. This method goes a long way towards addressing my concerns raised in 2b), and one wonders why the authors did not stick to the same procedure in all their experiments. However, when applying super-glue on the acidopore, there is a high risk of gluing the rectum and other glands shut at the same time, which could also have side-effects on survival of both donor and recipient ants. How can the authors be sure they only glued the acidopore shut? What precautions were taken to exclude ants onto which more glue was accidentally applied from the experiments? What is the consequences of this risk for the conclusions?

3) A key finding (shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1) is that the growth of Serratia marcescens is inhibited by only 50% relative to pH5 under pH4 (reached at about 4 hours after feeding according to Figure 1A), and by almost 100% under pH3 (reached at about 24 hours after feeding according to Figure 1A). Similarly, Figure 3 shows that the amount of live S. marcescens in the crop has not decreased after 0.5hour after feeding but has decreased to almost 0 after 4 hours. For the crop to be effective as a filter, it seems indispensable that food remains inside the crop for a minimum of time (somewhere between 0.5hour and 4hours) before being passed to the midgut. This is a very important piece of information, yet it is only partially addressed at a late stage in the Materials and methods section(peak passage time of food from crop to midgut given in subsection “Bacterial growth assays”). I would like this to be moved to the main text, and more detail to be given (what is the minimum time within the crop?)

4) Can the authors discuss why the acidification did not extend to the midgut? What mechanism could prevent midgut acidification when food moves from the crop to the midgut?

5) Are there any acidophilic pathogenic bacteria known in ants? Or non-acidophilic symbiotic microbes found in the midgut? How does this fit with the main scenario?

6) Subsection “Statistical analyses”: which multiple-testing corrections were applied when using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test over the 7 ant species?

7) In Figure 3A and 3C: I do not understand the legend for Figure 3 stating that what is displayed is the 'change in CFUs' relative to 0h in the crop. If that was the case, wouldn't all data-points for 0h in the crop be equal to 1 (if the 'change' is a ratio) or 0 (if the 'change' is a difference)? Please clarify.

8) Figure 3—figure supplement 1: same comment as above: if what is displayed is a 'change in CFUs relative to pH5', why aren't all points for pH5 equal to 1 or 0? Please clarify.

9) Some punctuation errors (there should be no comma after "both" in the Introduction, after "blocks" , after "colony", or after "petri dish" Subsection “Statistical analyses”). Some parts of the text should also be rewritten/simplified are they are difficult to follow (e.g. Results and Discussion section; "whether analogous to acidic…": grammatically incorrect in English; too wordy/hard to follow; hard to follow).

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript describes a novel mechanism of individual and social immune defense in ants, via the ingestion of acidic secretions from the abdominal poison gland. The authors carried out experiments demonstrating that (1) after feeding, the crop of Camponotus floridanus is acidified, but only if the ants have access to their abdomen; (2) the ant gut bacterium Asaia sp. survives acidic conditions in vitro and in vivo in the crop, whereas the pathogen Serratia does not, and neither does E. coli; (3) upon pathogen encounter, ants survive better when they have access to their poison glands, and nestmates also survive better when they interact with infected ants that have access to the poison gland than those that don't; and (4) crop acidification via ingestion of poison gland secretions appears to be widespread in formicine ants (demonstrated here in eight species across three genera). Although there are (less likely) alternative explanations for some of the results that could be discussed a bit more, the manuscript is generally very well-written and presents important novel findings that contribute to our understanding of individual-level and social immune defenses in ants. I have only one concern regarding the generally low survivorship of ants presented in Figure 2A, which in my view requires more explanation, but I anticipate the authors to be able to address this point. I commend the authors on a very interesting piece of work that presents exciting novel findings of broad interest.

Essential revisions:

1) The data presented in Figure 2A indicate that essentially all ants are dead after four days, regardless of whether they were exposed to Serratia or not, and the differences between treatment are in fact rather small. By contrast, the Serratia-exposed ants in Figure 2B lived much longer. What is the reason for the discrepancy in survival between the two experiments, and why do "healthy" ants die so quickly in Figure 2A?

Reviewer #3:

Summary:

This manuscript describes a series of experiments in carpenter ants that collectively show or suggest links between acidopore access, crop pH, and the survival of different bacteria in the gut.

That ants can use their own poison to adjust their crop pH in a way that selectively filters harmful bacteria is a fascinating idea. I enjoyed reading this manuscript, which is clearly written and data rich. The statistical analyses are appropriate and the authors provide all necessary raw data and clearly annotated R scripts to reproduce them.

The authors present convincing evidence for a link between acidopore access and crop pH, between acidopore access and survival following pathogen ingestion, and between pH and bacteria survival. They show more suggestive evidence for a role of acidopore grooming in limiting disease transmission and in 'filtering' harmful bacteria (while preserving presumed beneficial bacteria), with the causality of some links not entirely clear (see main comments below).

Essential revisions:

1) The results are interpreted as "prophylactic acidification" of the crop after feeding. Because no baseline level of acidity (i.e. before feeding) is provided, it is unclear whether acidopore grooming-induced changes in pH after feeding represent a transient acidification (i.e. from an otherwise higher 'normal' pH value), or a slow return to a baseline low pH (i.e. to maintain homeostasis) following a perturbation due to feeding. If the authors have such baseline (i.e. pre-feeding) data or can produce it easily, it would help interpret several results presented in the manuscript (e.g. it could help clarify point 3 below).

2) Figure 2B: The authors do not show direct evidence of a decrease in disease transmission, only an increase in survival when donor ants have acidopore access. In other words, while the differences in survival between receiver ants in the two treatments could plausibly be due to them receiving more bacteria from the donor ants, it could also be due to other effects (e.g. crop pH alone, donor overall health, etc.). To show a decrease in disease transmission would require showing differences in bacterial CFUs in the crop of receiver ants across treatments. I would therefore be very careful in interpreting these results in terms of disease transmission (e.g. Abstract, which currently reads "the ensuing creation of an acidic environment"… "limits disease transmission").

3) Figure 3: S. marcescens decreases to undetectable levels in the crop 4 hours post-feeding. The authors suggest that this decrease is due to low pH in the crop, itself presumably due to acidopore grooming (Results and Discussion section: "Consistent with this"). Based on the survival of S. marcescens at different pH values (Figure 3—figure supplement 1), this decrease would require crop pH 3 or lower. However, Figure 1A indicates that 4 hours post-feeding, crop pH is actually closer to 4. Can the authors address this seeming discrepancy? Currently, because the data shown in Figure 3 is not accompanied by gut pH data, it's difficult to clearly attribute the decline in S. marcescens to pH (rather than, say, immune responses).

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting your article "Formicine ants swallow their highly acidic poison for gut microbial selection and control" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Christian Rutz as the Senior Editor.

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

As the editors have judged that your manuscript is of interest, but as described below that additional experiments are required before it is published, we would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). First, because many researchers have temporarily lost access to the labs, we will give authors as much time as they need to submit revised manuscripts. We are also offering, if you choose, to post the manuscript to bioRxiv (if it is not already there) along with this decision letter and a formal designation that the manuscript is "in revision at eLife". Please let us know if you would like to pursue this option. (If your work is more suitable for medRxiv, you will need to post the preprint yourself, as the mechanisms for us to do so are still in development.)

Summary:

In this article, the authors provide evidence that formicine ants actively swallow their antimicrobial, highly acidic poison gland secretion to limit the establishment of pathogenic and opportunistic microbes ingested with food. This is an original mechanism to control the entry of pathogenic microbes.

Essential revisions:

1) All reviewers appreciated the care and effort that went into addressing the reviewers' earlier comments. However, we feel that the resulting doubling in length of the manuscript was not justified and actually made the article harder to read and the main message less clear. Some of the new material in the Discussion section almost amounts to mini reviews, which distract from -- and go beyond -- the scope of this article. For example, instead of a lengthy discussion of all the factors that can affect gut pH in insects, and of what is known of colony-wide patterns of trophallaxis in ants, it would be sufficient to briefly state that poison-swallowing is not the only way in which ants can adjust crop pH, and that the observed effects might have colony-wide effects, respectively. We would encourage the authors to trim back the article and be more synthetic when explaining caveats.

2) The reviewers still have one additional worry regarding the main conclusion of the article, namely, that the acidification of the crop acts like a filter by killing non-acidophilic pathogenic bacteria, but not acidophilic beneficial bacteria, before they are transferred to the midgut. The data presented provide indirect evidence that this is likely to be the case, but a key piece of the puzzle is missing to establish a causal relationship between acidification and filtering in vivo: namely, a demonstration that in the absence of acidification, a larger proportion of live bacteria is passed to the midgut (i.e., repeating the measurements shown in Figure 2 and Figure 5, but in immobilised ants or acidopore-blocked ants). Without that experiment, one cannot fully rule out the following alternative explanation: other immune mechanisms (but not acidification) are responsible for killing bacteria within the crop, and acidification is necessary for other biological functions, so that when ants are simultaneously faced with a bacterial challenge and a lack of acidification, the two deleterious effects combine to produce lower survival even in the absence of a direct effect of acidity on pathogen survival (this type of negative interaction between deleterious effects is often found in conservation studies where a combination of several threats leads to much faster extinction than any single threat would do). We are aware that an additional experiment may be difficult for the authors to perform at this stage, so we would like to offer them a choice. In case it is easy for them to do so, we would encourage them to repeat the measurements shown in Figure 2 and Figure 5 for acidopore-blocked or immobilised ants, as this would strengthen the article's conclusions as well as help shorten it, because some of the caveats currently detailed in the Discussion section would no longer need to be explored. Alternatively, we are still keen to publish the article, but we would then ask the authors to succinctly state in the Discussion section that their evidence on the effect of acidification is indirect and that they cannot rule out at present that other immune mechanisms are responsible for killing the pathogenic bacteria within the crop.

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Briefly, all three reviewers liked the manuscript, but agreed that there were major concerns about:

1) potential side effects of the two different methods to block acidopore access;

2) baseline pH data in the crop and assessing the temporal extent of acidopore grooming beyond the 30 minutes to explain the continued decrease in pH;

3) lack of direct evidence for a decrease in disease transmission, as there are alternative explanations for the observed results;

4) the drop in Serratia survival in the crop above pH values that would be lethal in culture;

5) and the generally high mortality in the survival assays, even in pathogen-free ants.

It seems to us that most of these points can be addressed through more careful discussion and interpretation of the results that considers alternative explanations. Some points may, however, reflect serious flaws in the experimental design (especially points 1 and 5), but we can only assess this once we have received a revision and accompanying response.

In the revision, we have completely restructured the Results section and have added a distinct discussion where we carefully discuss and interpret our results considering alternative explanations. In addition, we have performed novel experiments that strengthen and extend our original conclusions.

Specifically, we now (1) clarify potential side effects and limitations of our methods to prevent acidopore grooming and to block acidopore access and explicitly state how we controlled for them in our experiments (answer to comment 2b and 2c of reviewer 1), (2) provide baseline pH data in the crop which indicates that swallowing of the poison and thus crop acidity is not a transient effect after perturbation of the crop pH through the ingestion of fluids but that ants rather aim to maintain an optimal, acidic pH in the crop (answer to comment 1 of reviewer 3), (3) carefully discuss that the improved survival of ants receiving pathogen contaminated food via trophallaxis from ants with the ability to swallow the poison can only provide indirect evidence for a decrease in disease transmission and that other effects might play a role (answer to comment 2 of reviewer 3), (4) explain that our choice to starve ants after a one time feeding of pathogen contaminated or non-contaminated food together with social isolation likely led to the overall high mortality in acidopore access prevented and non-prevented ants in the survival experiment shown in Figure 3 (answer to comment 1 of reviewer 2).

Reviewer #1:

1) The main conclusion of the paper is that formicine ants actively swallow their poison gland secretions after feeding to acidify their crop. However, results from Figure 1A shows that the acidification of the crop continues much beyond 24 hours after feeding (pH significantly lower at 0h⁺48 hours than at 0h⁺24hours). To me this suggests that the acidification of the crop involves a continuous/constant mechanism, either via a physiological production of acid within the crop, or via a constant swallowing of poison gland secretion (which may be temporarily upregulated after feeding to compensate for the food dilution effect according to Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Unfortunately, measurements of acidopore grooming frequency were stopped 30 minutes after feeding so it is difficult to evaluate how long this upregulation lasts. However, I feel that the authors should rephrase their conclusions to avoid giving the impression that poison gland grooming occurs only after feeding (or that it is the only mechanism involved).

We agree that acidopore grooming and swallowing of the poison is a natural component of the behavioural repertoire of formicine ants that is constantly performed. This is indicated by the following:

1) Two previous studies investigating grooming behaviours over a range of hymenopteran families found that acidopore grooming is a specialized behaviour existing only in a subset of ant families, i.e. Formicinae, Dolichoderinae and Myrmicinae (Basibuyuk and Quicke, 1999, Farish, 1972). Behaviour in those studies was recorded for at least 15minutes. per species (Basibuyuk and Quicke, 1999: 15minutes. to 2hours; Farish, 1972: five recording session of 5minutes.) in field collected and lab raised animals (Basibuyuk and Quicke, 1999, not specified in Farish, 1972). Behavioural records in those studies were not performed under specific animal conditions, e.g. fed vs. unfed. Therefore, acidopore grooming occurs under a variety of conditions.

2) In line with this is the observation of the first author in a previous study (Tragust et al., 2013) that acidopore grooming occurs naturally in formicine ants nursing pupal brood and

3) The observation of the present study that acidopore grooming is not only performed after fluid ingestion but also occurs in unfed ants (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). The natural occurrence of acidopore grooming and swallowing of the acidic poison will inevitably lead to more acidic crop lumens over time as seen in Figure 1A and to acidic crop lumens in formicine ants as the natural state. According to the suggestion of reviewer 3 we have now added data on the baseline pH in crop lumens of formicine ants. This data revealed that the crop of C. floridanus workers is highly acidic irrespective of whether ants were taken directly out of a satiated colony or whether ant cohorts were satiated and then starved for 24hours before measurements (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). Therefore, we interpret the upregulated frequency of acidopore grooming after fluid ingestion (Figure 1—figure supplement 2) now as the ant’s pursuit to maintain an acidic, likely optimal baseline pH in their crop lumen after perturbation of the crop pH through the ingestion of fluids. We have included this interpretation in the result section and the Discussion section and avoid giving the impression that swallowing of the poison only occurs after feeding.

Regarding the reasoning why we think that acidopore grooming and swallowing of poison is the mechanism behind the acidity in crop of formicine ants we refer the reviewer to the answer given below under point 2b.

2) Key to demonstrating that crop acidification is a direct consequence of acidopore grooming are the experiments where the ants were prevented from grooming their acidopores (FA- ants).

2a) This is such an important part of the demonstration that I feel the methodology used to prevent acidopore grooming should appear in the main text (e.g. the Results and Discussion section), and not be 'hidden' within the Materials and methods section.

We now mention the methodology to prevent acidopore grooming throughout the result section at appropriate places (Results section) together with a reference to the Materials and methods section for additional details.

2b) When reading the Materials and methods section, I realised that in the first few experiments, the ants were prevented from grooming the acidopores by being immobilised inside a pipette tip, whereas control (FA+) ants were left to move freely. In my opinion this is the most problematic part of the study, as the two treatments differ by a lot more parameters than just acidopore grooming: compared to FA+, FA- ants cannot move, are under high levels of physiological stress, cannot interact with nestmates, cannot groom other parts of their bodies,…there are therefore a lot of alternative explanations for the differences between treatments. The authors need to acknowledge this weakness in their experimental design, and justify why they conclude that acidopore grooming is the one mechanism responsible for the observed differences

Unfortunately, in experimental settings, especially with non-model organisms, it is often impossible to control for all relevant factors as their effect on the measure of interest is often unknown. We agree that the method of immobilising ants to prevent them from acidopore grooming differs as a treatment in more aspects than just the behaviour from ants that could move freely and that unknown factors that were not controlled for might influence the acidity of the crop of formicine ants. We now acknowledge this now throughout the discussion (see below) but none withstanding believe that our data provide a convincing case that swallowing of the poison is responsible for crop acidity in formicine ants for the reasons given below.

As rightly pointed out by the reviewer, immobilisation of ants likely results in an elevated level of stress and a lack of interaction with nestmates. The lack of interaction with nestmates should however not have played a role under the experimental settings in Figure 1, as all ants were kept singly in petri dishes irrespective of whether they were immobilised or not. Potentially elevated levels of stress are the reason why in the survival experiment (Figure 3), acidopore grooming prevented ants through immobilisation were freed again after 24hours, a timepoint after main food passage from the crop to the midgut (see added data Figure 2—figure supplement 1 and answer to point 3 below) to limit stress induced mortality. As immobilised ants receiving a noncontaminated food source in this experiment survived significantly better than immobilised ants receiving a pathogen contaminated food source, a survival that was not significantly different from ants that could move freely, we conclude that elevated levels of stress did likely not influence the results of this experiment (see the Discussion section). Instead we now point out in the discussion that starvation following the onetime feeding of contaminated and non-contaminated food together with social isolation likely explain the high mortality of ants observed in this experimental setup (see the Discussion section and answer given to point 1 of reviewer 2).

The inability to groom other parts of the ant’s body is precisely what we wanted to achieve with the methodology of immobilising the ants in pipetting tips for the following reasons:

1) As the reviewer pointed out under point 1 above, physiological mechanisms within the digestive tract or other internal sources (see the Discussion section) could potentially lead to acidic crops in formicine ants and immobilisation effectively eliminates a possible contribution of these internal sources while at the same time indicating that an external source is likely responsible for crop acidity. We have added this line of reasoning now in the Results section and the Discussion section.

2) Ants possess a diversity of exocrine glands. Some exocrine glands produce acidic secretions and could thus serve as external sources for crop acidity. We acknowledge this now in the Discussion section.

3) Most notable among these exocrine glands with respect to crop acidity, are the metapleural gland and the poison gland. Both produce acidic secretion in several ant species and are actively groomed with movements involving the mouth. Immobilisation effectively prevents the use of acidic substances from both glands and importantly for our comparative survey (Figure 1C), provides a comparable method to indicate acidic exocrine secretions as the most likely source for formicine ant crop acidity. In addition, acidic metapleural gland secretions could not have served as an external source for crop acidity in the focal ant species of our study, Camponotus floridanus, as ants of the genus Camponotus show, with few exceptions, an evolutionary loss of the metapleural gland (i.e. C. floridanus and C. maculatus used for our experiments do not possess a metapleural gland). Acidic metapleural gland secretions could however serve as sources for crop acidity in the Formica and Lasius ants tested in our comparative survey (Figure 1C). We now acknowledge this in the Discussion section together with other alternative explanations for the high variability in crop lumen acidity of immobilised and nonimmobilised ants in Figure 1C (see the Discussion section).

We agree that compared to immobilisation the application of superglue provides methodologically a more direct evidence for the acidic poison as the source for crop acidity in formicine ants. While immobilisation can only indicate external sources, most likely in the form of acidic exocrine secretions, the application of superglue on the acidopore directly hints at the acidic poison as external source. However, the poison is the most likely source with both manipulations in all formicine ants tested as a previous study of the first author (Tragust et al., 2013) provided evidence that acidopore grooming results in the uptake of the poison into the mouth of the formicine ant Lasius neglectus while metapleural gland grooming was never observed (see the Introduction and the Discussion section). In addition, as a method, both immobilisation as well as the application of superglue to the acidopore in survival experiments involving Camponotus floridanus ants (Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively) yielded qualitatively the same results, i.e. a higher survival of unmanipulated ants, indicating that swallowing of acidic exocrine secretions/the acidic poison provides a fitness benefit to formicine ants after ingestion of pathogen contaminated food sources. In both survival experiments, the effect of ant manipulation was controlled for and is unlikely to explain survival differences (see above for survival shown in Figure 3 and see answer to point 2c below). The application of superglue and not immobilisation was used in the survival experiment involving donor and receiver ants (Figure 4) as it would have been impossible to perform the experiment with immobilisation.

2c) In the last few experiments, FA- ants were obtained using a different protocole: application of superglue onto the acidopore. This method goes a long way towards addressing my concerns raised in 2b), and one wonders why the authors did not stick to the same procedure in all their experiments. However, when applying super-glue on the acidopore, there is a high risk of gluing the rectum and other glands shut at the same time, which could also have side-effects on survival of both donor and recipient ants. How can the authors be sure they only glued the acidopore shut? What precautions were taken to exclude ants onto which more glue was accidentally applied from the experiments? What is the consequence of this risk for the conclusions?

We refer the reviewer to the reasoning outlined under point 2b for why we did not stick to the same procedure to prevent acidopore grooming in our experiments.

We completely agree that the application of superglue on the acidopore (Figure 4) or of superglue or nail varnish in diverse papers from other research groups (Tranter et al., 2014; Tranter and Hughes, 2015; Greystock and Hughes, 2011; Pull et al., 2018), will invariably not only block the efferent duct of the poison gland, but also the opening of the hindgut and the efferent ducts of other glands, namely the Dufour gland and the cloacal gland, as they all open into a cloacal chamber with the acidopore as the common opening (Hölldobler and Wilson, 1998; Wenseleers et al., 1998). Especially blockage of the hindgut and the ensuing inability to defecate is likely to have contributed in combination with the ingestion of S. marcescens contaminated honey water to mortality of ants shown in Figure 4. However, our experimental design controlled for this and all else being equal allows us to disentangle the contribution of ant manipulation, i.e. blockage per se, from the inability to access the poison upon contact with S. marcescens contaminated food. The contribution of ant manipulation per se to mortality in Figure 4 is given by the survival difference between unmanipulated donor ants (donor FA+ with direct access to the poison gland secretion; solid grey line in Figure 4) and manipulated receiver ants that obtained food through unmanipulated donor ants (receiver FA- ants with indirect access to the poison gland secretion through the donor ants; solid black line in Figure 4). The lower survival of receiver FA- ants compared to donor FA+ ants indicates that blockage of the acidopore with superglue results in elevated levels of mortality, a fact that we acknowledge in the Results section. The additional contribution of the inability to access the poison to blockage per se is given by the survival difference between manipulated receiver ants that obtained food through unmanipulated donor ants (receiver FA- ants with indirect access to the poison gland secretion through their donor ants; solid black line Figure 4) and manipulated receiver ants (receiver FA-; dashed black line Figure 4) that obtained food from manipulated donor ants (donor FA-; dashed grey line Figure 4), both with the inability to access the poison. The higher survival of receiver FA- ants that obtained food from donor FA+ ants compared to the survival of receiver FA- ants that obtained food from donor FA- ants indicates that access to the poison after feeding on pathogen contaminated food does not only improve survival of ants directly feeding on pathogen contaminated food but also of ants they share the contaminated food via trophallaxis. Hence, swallowing of the poison and the ensuing crop acidity in formicine ants has the potential to limit oral disease transmission during food distribution within the society (see the Results section and the Discussion section for a discussion thereof). Finally, the combined effect of ant manipulation per se and the inability to access poison gland substances is given by the mortality difference between unmanipulated donor ants (donor FA+; solid grey line in Figure 4) and ants in the manipulated donor-receiver ant pair (donor FA- and receiver FA-; dashed grey and black solid lines in Figure 2b, respectively), the latter two not differing in survival.

3) A key finding (shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1) is that the growth of Serratia marcescens is inhibited by only 50% relative to pH5 under pH4 (reached at about 4 hours after feeding according to Figure 1A), and by almost 100% under pH3 (reached at about 24 hours after feeding according to Figure 1A). Similarly, Figure 3 shows that the amount of live S. marcescens in the crop has not decreased after 0.5hour after feeding, but has decreased to almost 0 after 4 hours. For the crop to be effective as a filter, it seems indispensable that food remains inside the crop for a minimum of time (somewhere between 0.5hour and 4hours) before being passed to the midgut. This is a very important piece of information, yet it is only partially addressed at a late stage in the Materials and methods section (peak passage time of food from crop to midgut given in subsection “Bacterial growth assays”). I would like this to be moved to the main text, and more detail to be given (what is the minimum time within the crop?)

Unfortunately, the literature on food passage from the crop to the midgut is limited and fragmentary in ants. Workers of the fire ant, S. invicta, will pass some of a 5% sucrose solution to the midgut within seconds of ingestion, but levels in the midgut are highest between six and 24hours after consumption (Howard and Tschinkel, 1981). In the wood ant, F. polyctena, only 20% of consumed radioactively labelled honey water is seen in the midgut 4.5 hours after feeding (Gößwald and Kloft, 1960a). In the argentine ant, L. humile, radioactively labelled food was mostly restricted to the crop for 3 to 6hours after feeding but had entered the midgut by 12hours (Markin, 1970). In the carpenter ant, C. pennsylvanicus, food labelled with sodium fluorescein revealed that food passage from the crop to the midgut was relatively stable 4-16hours after food ingestion and appeared to peak at 20hours. Moreover, in C. pennsylvanicus, fluorescent particles of a size of 0.5 -10 µm remained in the partly filled crop even at 20hours post-feeding (Cannon, 1998). We have now added a data set on the food passage from the crop to the midgut and hindgut of Camponotus floridanus over time (Material and methods section). To investigate food passage, we took a cohort of ~100 workers out of one natal colony of C. floridanus, starved them for 24hours and then offered them 200 µl of a 1:1 honey-water mix with 50mg of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA, aka acrylic glass) particles (size ≤ 40 µm). Then, we dissected the digestive tract of three major and three minor workers at each of the timepoints 2hours, 4hours, 6hours, 8hours, 12hours, 14hours, 16hours, 18hours, 24hours and 48hours after feeding and placed each under a microscope (Leica DM 2000 LED) to detect and count the number of particles via fluorescence in the crop, the midgut and the hindgut. This data revealed that only few particles pass from the crop to the midgut until 2-4hours after feeding, while particle passage from the crop to the midgut steadily increased thereafter until 8h after feeding and then declined steadily (Results section). Thus, our data largely confirm literature reports on the timing of food passage in the gastrointestinal tract of ants (Discussion section).

Together, food passage data from the literature and our own experiments (new Figure 2—figure supplement 1), indicate that only a small amount of ingested food is passed from the crop to the midgut until 4h after feeding, while thereafter food is steadily passed from the crop to the midgut. Hence our decision to measure CFU numbers in Figure 2 at 0.5hour, 4hours, 24hours and 48hours in addition to the reference timepoint 0hour, is representative of two time points before main food passage from the crop to the midgut (0.5hour and 4hours) and two time points after main food passage from the crop to the midgut (24hours and 48hours). We realize that food passage information is especially important in the context of the ability of bacteria to withstand acidic conditions in the intestinal tract and have therefore added the new data as an additional figure supplement to Figure 2 (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 1).

We refer the reviewer to the answer given to point 3 of reviewer 3 why we think that the sensitivity of S. marcescens to withstand acidic conditions created with formic acid in vitro likely underestimates the antimicrobial effect of the formicine poison in vivo.

4) Can the authors discuss why the acidification did not extend to the midgut? What mechanism could prevent midgut acidification when food moves from the crop to the midgut?

As outlined under point 1 above, we interpret the baseline level of acidity in the crop (Figure 1—figure supplement 3) and the upregulated frequency of acidopore grooming after fluid ingestion (Figure 1—figure supplement 2) as the ants pursuit to maintain an optimal, acidic baseline pH in their crop after perturbation of the crop lumen pH through the ingestion of fluids. Although digestion is initiated in the crop, the midgut is the primary site of digestion in insects and the midgut epithelium plays a pivotal role in maintaining an optimal pH, as the gut pH is one of the most important regulators of digestive enzyme activity (Holtof et al., 2019, Terra and Ferreira, 1994). We think that this might be the reason why the midgut pH of C. floridanus shows only slightly acidic levels (pH 5) after highly acidic levels in the crop 24hours after feeding (see the Discussion section), a change of pH that might be achieved through physiological mechanisms (see the Discussion section for an outline how acidic conditions in the crop of insects might be achieved). In principle, a digestive compartment with a certain pH can be generated through physiological mechanisms involving a transport-loop of acid-base equivalents across epithelia (Onken and Moffett, 2017). Insects would thus regulate the pH of their crop or of other gut compartments through active uptake and excretion of acid–base equivalents across the gut epithelium (Matthews, 2017). Although insect gut compartments with extreme pH conditions have been reported in the literature, with few notable exceptions (Flower and Filshie, 1976, Miguel-Aliaga et al., 2018), the exact physiological mechanisms responsible for the creation of a gut lumen compartment with a certain pH are unknown in most insects (Harrison, 2001). We can thus only speculate, but physiological mechanisms involving active uptake and excretion of acid-base equivalents across the gut epithelium seem to us the most likely explanation for only slightly acidic conditions in the midgut of C. floridanus.

5) Are there any acidophilic pathogenic bacteria known in ants? Or non-acidophilic symbiotic microbes found in the midgut? How does this fit with the main scenario?

Some members of the Acetobacteraceae are pathogenic in humans and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster (Greenberg et al., 2006, Roh et al., 2008, Ryu et al., 2008) and most Acetobacteraceae produce metabolites that can potentially interfere with insect physiology and innate immunity (Chouaia et al., 2014). This may indicate that Acetobacteraceae found in formicine ants can act as pathogens. We have added this information in the Discussion section but are not aware that acidophilic pathogenic bacteria have been identified in ants.

Several groups of ants apparently harbour very few microbial associates, while others harbour a high density of microbial associates (Russel et al., 2017). Apart from specialised intracellular symbionts, these patterns have emerged only in recent years and detailed investigations on exact anatomical location, function and many other aspects are still unclear in most host-microbe associations involving ants. Many bacteria however produce short chain fatty acids and can thus acidify their environment (Ratzke et al., 2018, Ratzke and Gore, 2018). In particular, the Acetobacteraceae and various Lactobacilli, members of which are known as microbial associates of Hymenoptera (McFederick et al., 2013) release acetic acid as a waste product of their fermentative metabolism (Oude Elferink et al., 2001; Wolfe, 2005). Therefore, in ants and other animals that lack acidic poison gland secretions acidic derivatives produced by other gut microbial associates or environmental and defensive symbionts (Florez et al., 2015) might provide functionally similar roles to acidic poison gland secretions in formicine ants. Indications for this comes from studies in bees (Palmer-Young et al., 2018) and termites (Inagakie and Matsuura, 2018). We have added this line of reasoning in the Discussion section.

6) Subsection “Statistical analyses”: which multiple-testing corrections were applied when using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test over the 7 ant species?

Crop acidity in the comparative study of the seven ant species was analysed with a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for each species separately. As only ant treatment (two levels: FA- and FA+) was entered into the tests, no correction for multiple testing is needed.

7) In Figure 3A and 3C: I do not understand the legend for Figure 3 stating that what is displayed is the 'change in CFUs' relative to 0h in the crop. If that was the case, wouldn't all data-points for 0h in the crop be equal to 1 (if the 'change' is a ratio) or 0 (if the 'change' is a difference)? Please clarify.

Please see below our answer to the next comment.

8) Figure 3—figure supplement 1: same comment as above: if what is displayed is a 'change in CFUs relative to pH5', why aren't all points for pH5 equal to 1 or 0? Please clarify.

We apologize that we did not make this clear. Relative values shown in Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 1 and Figure 5—figure supplement 2 were calculated by dividing all single CFU values through the mean of CFU-values of the reference level (Figure 2, Figure 5 and Figure 5—figure supplement 2: 0hour in the crop; Figure 2—figure supplement 2 and Figure 5—figure supplement 1: pH 5). This procedure was applied to all CFU-values and the obtained relative values are shown in the respective figures. The same procedure was also applied to values of the reference level, resulting in values bigger and smaller than one. We chose this calculation and representation, as it allowed us (1) to show variation in the obtained data also at the reference level, (2) to show patterns of change relative to the reference level and (3) to facilitate the comparison between the figures for the reader. Although we mentioned this calculation in the Materials and methods section of the previous version of the manuscript, we realize that without a proper explanation in the Results section and the figure legends, relative values appear puzzling. We therefore not only state the calculation in the Material and methods section but make it explicit in the Results section and the figure legends of Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 2, Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 1, and Figure 5—figure supplement 2.

9) Some punctuation errors (there should be no comma after "both" in the Introduction, after "blocks", after "colony", or after "petri dish" Subsection “Statistical analyses”). Some parts of the text should also be rewritten/simplified are they are difficult to follow (e.g. Results and Discussion section; "whether analogous to acidic…": grammatically incorrect in English; too wordy/hard to follow; hard to follow).

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these mistakes. We have amended them and tried to simplify sentences.

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript describes a novel mechanism of individual and social immune defense in ants, via the ingestion of acidic secretions from the abdominal poison gland. The authors carried out experiments demonstrating that (1) after feeding, the crop of Camponotus floridanus is acidified, but only if the ants have access to their abdomen; (2) the ant gut bacterium Asaia sp. survives acidic conditions in vitro and in vivo in the crop, whereas the pathogen Serratia does not, and neither does E. coli; (3) upon pathogen encounter, ants survive better when they have access to their poison glands, and nestmates also survive better when they interact with infected ants that have access to the poison gland than those that don't; and (4) crop acidification via ingestion of poison gland secretions appears to be widespread in formicine ants (demonstrated here in eight species across three genera). Although there are (less likely) alternative explanations for some of the results that could be discussed a bit more, the manuscript is generally very well-written and presents important novel findings that contribute to our understanding of individual-level and social immune defenses in ants. I have only one major concern regarding the generally low survivorship of ants presented in Figure 2A, which in my view requires more explanation, but I anticipate the authors to be able to address this point. I commend the authors on a very interesting piece of work that presents exciting novel findings of broad interest.

Essential revisions:

1) The data presented in Figure 2A indicate that essentially all ants are dead after four days, regardless of whether they were exposed to Serratia or not, and the differences between treatment are in fact rather small. By contrast, the Serratia-exposed ants in Figure 2B lived much longer. What is the reason for the discrepancy in survival between the two experiments, and why do "healthy" ants die so quickly in Figure 2A?

We are sorry that differences in methodology between the two survival experiments were not clear in the previous version of the manuscript, though they are likely responsible for differences in survivorship between the two experiments. These differences include the (1) methodology to prevent access to the poison, (2) the feeding regime, (3) the social environment and (4) the dose of S. marcescens throughout the experiment outlined below in more details.

1) Ants in Figure 3 were prevented to access the poison for 24hours after exposure to S.

marcescens contaminated food through immobilisation in a pipetting tip. After 24hours they were released to minimize stress and potentially associated effects on mortality. Ants in Figure 4 were prevented access to the poison through blockage of the acidopore opening with superglue. As reviewer 1 rightly points out in her comment 2b and 2c, both methods might differ in more aspects than just the prevention poison access and might have other limitations (see our answer to these comments). The effect of these different ant manipulations on mortality rates was however controlled for with appropriate controls in the survival experiments. For the experiment in Figure 3 we found a nonsignificant difference between ants that could move freely and received a S. marcescens contaminated food source and ants that could move freely but received a noncontaminated food source. In contrast, we found a significant lower survival of immobilised ants fed a S. marcescens contaminated food source compared to immobilised ants that received a non-contaminated food source. As immobilised ants that received a non-contaminated food source did not differ in their survival from ants that could move freely, elevated levels of stress due to immobilisation are unlikely to have influence mortality in this experiment (see the Discussion section). For the experiment in Figure 4 we would like to direct the reviewer to the answer given to reviewer 1 to comment point 2c.

2) Ants in both survival experiments experienced an initial starvation period of 24-48hours before use under experimental condition. Thereafter, ants used in Figure 3 were only fed once with 5µl of a contaminated and non-contaminated food source at the beginning of the experiment while no additional food was given to them in the following days. C. floridanus ants thus experienced starvation under our experimental conditions which likely led to a high mortality in this experiment. In a similar experiment involving the formicine ant species Formica exsecta, oral exposure to S. marcescens contaminated food followed by starvation as well as starvation alone also led to a high mortality of ants with no additive effects of pathogen exposure combined with starvation (Stucki et al., 2019). Contrary to C. floridanus ants in Figure 3, ants in Figure 4 were fed every other day with 5µl of S. marcescens contaminated honey water (directly: donor ants, indirectly through trophallaxis: receiver ants) after the initial starvation period. Thus, ants in Figure 4 were continuously fed and likely experienced no or only a mild starvation. We have now mentioned these differences in experimental feeding regime explicitly throughout the Results section and have added in the Discussion section that starvation is one of the likely reasons for the high mortality of ants in Figure 3 irrespective of whether they received pathogen contaminated food or not (Discussion section).

3) In addition to starvation, ants in the experiment shown in Figure 3 were kept singly in petri dishes, while ants in Figure 4 were kept in pairs of donor and receiver ants and were kept singly only for 12hours every 48hours when donor ants were fed directly with S. marcescens contaminated food. Social isolation has been shown to increase mortality in ants (Koto et al., 2015) and social isolation has been shown to reduce an individual’s capacity to fight infections in other group living animals (Kohlmeier et al., 2016). Thus, social isolation experienced by C. floridanus ants under experimental conditions in Figure 3 is likely, in addition to starvation, to have led to a generally increased mortality of ants. We have added this reasoning in the Discussion section.

4) Ants in Figure 3 and Figure 4 were exposed to different concentrations of S. marcescens in contaminated food at the beginning of the experiment and in the case of ants in Figure 4 continuously every 48hours during the experiment (9.33 * 10⁹ bacteria/ml and 1.865 * 10⁹ bacteria/ml for Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively). The difference in S. marcescens concentration between the two survival experiments is unfortunate and not the result of choice but rather a calculation error. None withstanding, ants in Figure 3 and Figure 4 also experienced a widely different exposure to S. marcescens contaminated food, i.e. a onetime exposure for ants in Figure 3 vs a continuous exposure every 48hours for ants in Figure 4. Together, these differences in methodology preclude a direct comparison of mortality between the two experiments. A direct comparison of ant mortality was however also never our intention, as the two experiments test different hypotheses. While we test in Figure 3. whether access to the poison can improve survival upon directly ingesting S. marcescens contaminated food, in Figure 4 we test whether access to the poison shows the potential to limit disease transmission during trophallactic food exchange. To acknowledge this fact, we have now restructured our result section and present the results of the survival experiments in two separate figures. We realize that the data presented in Figure 4 does not provide direct evidence for a decrease in disease transmission. We acknowledge this now in the Discussion section where we also present alternative explanations (see the Discussion section and answer to point 2 of reviewer 3 below).

Reviewer #3:

Summary:

This manuscript describes a series of experiments in carpenter ants that collectively show or suggest links between acidopore access, crop pH, and the survival of different bacteria in the gut.

That ants can use their own poison to adjust their crop pH in a way that selectively filters harmful bacteria is a fascinating idea. I enjoyed reading this manuscript, which is clearly written and data rich. The statistical analyses are appropriate and the authors provide all necessary raw data and clearly annotated R scripts to reproduce them.

The authors present convincing evidence for a link between acidopore access and crop pH, between acidopore access and survival following pathogen ingestion, and between pH and bacteria survival. They show more suggestive evidence for a role of acidopore grooming in limiting disease transmission and in 'filtering' harmful bacteria (while preserving presumed beneficial bacteria), with the causality of some links not entirely clear (see main comments below).

Essential revisions:

1) The results are interpreted as "prophylactic acidification" of the crop after feeding. Because no baseline level of acidity (i.e. before feeding) is provided, it is unclear whether acidopore grooming-induced changes in pH after feeding represent a transient acidification (i.e.from an otherwise higher 'normal' pH value), or a slow return to a baseline low pH (i.e. to maintain homeostasis) following a perturbation due to feeding. If the authors have such baseline (i.e. pre-feeding) data or can produce it easily, it would help interpret several results presented in the manuscript (e.g. it could help clarify point 3 below).

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that our data in the previous version of the manuscript did not directly address this issue. We have now added data on the baseline pH in the crop of C. floridanus ants. This data revealed that the crop lumen of workers is highly acidic irrespective of whether ants were directly taken out of a satiated colony or whether ant cohorts were satiated for three days and then starved for 24hours before measurements (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). As pointed out in the response to point 1 of reviewer 1 several lines of evidence indicate that acidopore grooming and swallowing of the poison is a natural component of the behavioural repertoire of formicine ants under diverse circumstances. Thus, under constant conditions the pH of the crop will become increasingly acidic over time as seen in Figure 1A. However, constant conditions as in Figure 1A, will rarely be experienced by ants for long, as the crop content will be regularly perturbed during feeding and food exchange. This is evidenced by a series of recent studies with Camponotus sanctus (Greenwald et al., 2015 and Greenwald et al., 2018) which found that foragers as well as non-foragers dynamically fill, empty and mix crop liquid content. Under natural conditions perturbation of the crop content and with this the crop pH will therefore be rather the norm than the exception. According to this and the new data on baseline pH levels in the crop, we interpret the upregulated frequency of acidopore grooming after fluid ingestion (Figure 1—figure supplement 2) as the ants pursuit to maintain an optimal, acidic baseline pH in their crop after perturbation of the crop pH through the ingestion of fluids. We have included this interpretation in the Results section and the Discussion section.

2) Figure 2B: The authors do not show direct evidence of a decrease in disease transmission, only an increase in survival when donor ants have acidopore access. In other words, while the differences in survival between receiver ants in the two treatments could plausibly be due to them receiving more bacteria from the donor ants, it could also be due to other effects (e.g. crop pH alone, donor overall health, etc.). To show a decrease in disease transmission would require showing differences in bacterial CFUs in the crop of receiver ants across treatments. I would therefore be very careful in interpreting these results in terms of disease transmission (e.g. Abstract, which currently reads "the ensuing creation of an acidic environment"… "limits disease transmission").

We agree with the reviewer that our current data does not provide direct evidence of a decrease in disease transmission but only an increase in survival when donor ants have acidopore access. Although this might translate into a decrease of disease transmission, we lack data supporting this. We have therefore rephrased the sentence to: “This indicates that swallowing of the poison after feeding on pathogen contaminated food does not only improve survival of formicine ants directly feeding on pathogen contaminated food but also of ants that share the contaminated food via trophallaxis. Hence, swallowing of the poison and the ensuing crop acidity have the potential to limit oral disease transmission during food distribution within a formicine ant society.” (Results section)

We now also acknowledge in the Discussion section that apart from crop acidity and fewer bacteria being passed on from donor to receiver ants, other effects might play a role. This section now reads in the Discussion section: “ In addition to improve survival of ants that directly ingested pathogen contaminated food, the ability of donor ants to access their poison also improved survival of receiver ants without access to their poison when receiver ants shared pathogen contaminated food during trophallactic food exchange. Although our experiments on the ability of S. marcescens to withstand acidic conditions in vivo and in vitro indicate that this is likely due to fewer viable bacteria that are passed on from donor to receiver ants during trophallactic food exchange, it remains to be established whether this is indeed the case or whether this might be due to obtaining trophallactic fluids with antimicrobial activity. Antimicrobial activity of formicine ant trophallactic fluids has been described in previous studies (Hamilton et al., 2011, LeBoeuf et al., 2016). These studies linked the antimicrobial activity of trophallactic fluids to the presence of proteins related to cathepsin D, a lysosomal aspartic protease that can exhibit antibacterial effector activity and the proteolytic production of antimicrobial peptides (Ning et al., 2018). Our results however suggest a major role of swallowing the acidic poison to the antimicrobial activity of trophallactic fluids in formicine ants. Future studies will need to disentangle the relative contributions of crop acidity, proteins related to cathepsin D and, as previously pointed out, other immune effectors that are released into the insect gut to the antimicrobial activity of formicine ant trophallactic fluids.”

Finally, we acknowledge in the Discussion section that at the colony level our data is limited in showing a decrease of disease transmission and have therefore added a section on trophallactic food exchange and its potential consequences to disease transmission with respect to crop lumen acidity in formicine ants. This section now reads: “ The sensitivity of the bacterial pathogen S. marcescens to acidic conditions and the fitness benefit bestowed to ants with direct and indirect access to the poison after feeding on or receiving of pathogen contaminated food, might also indicate that swallowing of the poison and the ensuing crop acidity can act as an important barrier to oral disease spread within formicine ant societies. In the formicine ant Formica polyctena, food passage from the crop to the midgut is dependent upon whether food is directly eaten or is transferred via trophallaxis with only 20% of the honey water consumed directly seen in the midgut 4.5 hours after feeding, while 77% of the honey water received during trophallaxis reaching the midgut 2.5 hours after feeding (Gösswald and Kloft, 1960a). Poison acidified crop lumens might therefore alleviate the cost of sharing pathogen contaminated food (Onchuru et al., 2018, Salem et al., 2015) and effectively counteract the generally increased risk of pathogen exposure and transmission associated with group-living (Alexander, 1974, Boomsma et al., 2005, Kappeler et al., 2015). On the other hand, trophallactic food exchange is a dynamic process that is dependent upon the functional role of the worker (Greenwald et al., 2015), food type (Buffin et al., 2011), and likely many other contexts. For example, it has repeatedly been reported that after a time of starvation food is distributed extremely quickly and efficiently via trophallaxis within an ant colony (Buffin et al., 2009, Gösswald and Kloft, 1960b, Markin, 1970, Sendova-Franks et al., 2010, Traniello, 1977, Wilson and Eisner, 1957). While this increases the threat of pathogen dissemination together with food, it has been suggested that dilution and mixing of food together with the existence of disposable ants specialised in food storage can mitigate the threat of pathogenic and noxious substances distributed together with food (Buffin et al., 2011, Sendova-Franks et al., 2010). Recently, it has been reported that ant social networks can plastically respond to the presence of a pathogen and that ants alter their contact network to contain the spread of a disease (Stroeymeyt et al., 2018). In our study, the first bout of trophallactic food exchange between donor and receiver ants was not affected by the manipulation of poison access. However, especially at later time points, potential changes in the amount of food transmitted cannot be excluded, as trophallaxis and feeding behaviour in general might depend on the infection status of ants engaging in trophallactic food exchange (Hite et al., 2020). In future studies, it will therefore be interesting to examine whether swallowing of the poison and the ensuing crop acidity truly acts as a barrier to oral disease spread within formicine ant societies, especially given the technical advances to track multiple individuals of a group simultaneously over time that have been made in recent years (Gernat et al., 2018, Greenwald et al., 2015, Imirzian et al., 2019, Stroeymeyt et al., 2018).”

3) Figure 3: S. marcescens decreases to undetectable levels in the crop 4 hours post-feeding. The authors suggest that this decrease is due to low pH in the crop, itself presumably due to acidopore grooming (Results and Discussion section: "Consistent with this"). Based on the survival of S. marcescens at different pH values (Figure 3—figure supplement 1), this decrease would require crop pH 3 or lower. However, Figure 1A indicates that 4 hours post-feeding, crop pH is actually closer to 4. Can the authors address this seeming discrepancy? Currently, because the data shown in Figure 3 is not accompanied by gut pH data, it's difficult to clearly attribute the decline in S. marcescens to pH (rather than, say, immune responses).

The apparent discrepancy between the in vitro and in vivo ability of S. marcescens to withstand acidic conditions (shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 2 and in Figure 2, respectively) is likely explained by substances other than formic acid contained in the poison gland or substances added by the Dufour gland. Although the main component of the formicine ant poison is formic acid (Schmidt, 1986), the poison gland also contains acetic acid, hexadecanol, hexadecyl formate, hexadecyl acetat (Lopez et al., 1993) and a small fraction of unidentified peptides (Osman and Brandner, 1961, Herrmann and Blum, 1968). Moreover, in formicine ants the poison is usually expelled together from the acidopore with contents of the Dufour gland (Reigner and Wilson, 1968, Schoeters and Billen, 1995, but see Billen, 1982), which serve as wetting agents for the poison (Löfquist, 1977, see also Kohl et al., 2001). In a previous study, investigating the poison expelled from the acidopore by the formicine ant Lasius neglectus, we could confirm this and additionally tested the antimicrobial activity of different components of the poison against an entomopathogenic fungus either singly or in combination in vitro (Tragust et al., 2013). We found that formic acid alone could explain 70% of the antimicrobial activity of the poison, but that the combination of formic acid with other components of the poison gland and the Dufour gland could explain 94%. Thus, the inability of S. marcescens to withstand acidic conditions lower than pH 4 in vitro likely underestimates the antimicrobial effect of the formicine poison gland secretion in vivo. We have added this information in the Discussion section.

In addition, we agree with the reviewer that we cannot exclude that additional immune effectors such as AMPs might contribute to the observed decline of S. marcescens in the crop and its inability to establish in the midgut and explicitly acknowledge this now in the discussion. The corresponding sections read (Discussion section): “In a previous study we found that formic acid alone could explain 70% of the antimicrobial activity of the poison against an entomopathogenic fungus, but that the combination of formic acid with other components of the poison gland and the Dufour gland could explain 94% (Tragust et al., 2013). In addition to the likely higher antimicrobial activity of the natural poison compared to the activity of formic acid alone, in vivo immune system effectors released into the gut lumen might contribute to the inability of S. marcescens to establish in the gastrointestinal tract of C. floridanus. Highly acidic stomachs in vertebrates and acidic midgut regions in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster serve together with immune system effectors microbial control and prevent infection by oral pathogens (Giannella et al., 1972, Howden and Hunt, 1987, Martinsen et al., 2005, Overend et al., 2016, Rakoff-Nahoum et al., 2004, Slack et al., 2009, Tennant et al., 2008, Watnick and Jugder, 2020). Future studies will need to investigate the contribution of immune system effectors released into the gut lumen to the rapid reduction of S. marcescens in the crop of C. floridanus and its inability to establish in the midgut.” and (Discussion section): “Antimicrobial activity of formicine ant trophallactic fluids has been described in previous studies (Hamilton et al., 2011, LeBoeuf et al., 2016). These studies linked the antimicrobial activity of trophallactic fluids to the presence of proteins related to cathepsin D, a lysosomal aspartic protease that can exhibit antibacterial effector activity and the proteolytic production of antimicrobial peptides (Ning et al., 2018). Our results however suggest a major role of swallowing the acidic poison to the antimicrobial activity of trophallactic fluids in formicine ants. Future studies will need to disentangle the relative contributions of crop acidity, proteins related to cathepsin D and, as previously pointed out, other immune effectors that are released into the insect gut to the antimicrobial activity of formicine ant trophallactic fluids.”

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Summary:

In this article, the authors provide evidence that formicine ants actively swallow their antimicrobial, highly acidic poison gland secretion to limit the establishment of pathogenic and opportunistic microbes ingested with food. This is an original mechanism to control the entry of pathogenic microbes.

Essential revisions:

1) All reviewers appreciated the care and effort that went into addressing the reviewers' earlier comments. However, we feel that the resulting doubling in length of the manuscript was not justified and actually made the article harder to read and the main message less clear. Some of the new material in the Discussion section almost amounts to mini reviews, which distract from -- and go beyond -- the scope of this article. For example, instead of a lengthy discussion of all the factors that can affect gut pH in insects, and of what is known of colony-wide patterns of trophallaxis in ants, it would be sufficient to briefly state that poison-swallowing is not the only way in which ants can adjust crop pH, and that the observed effects might have colony-wide effects, respectively. We would encourage the authors to trim back the article and be more synthetic when explaining caveats.

2) The reviewers still have one additional worry regarding the main conclusion of the article, namely, that the acidification of the crop acts like a filter by killing non-acidophilic pathogenic bacteria, but not acidophilic beneficial bacteria, before they are transferred to the midgut. The data presented provide indirect evidence that this is likely to be the case, but a key piece of the puzzle is missing to establish a causal relationship between acidification and filtering in vivo: namely, a demonstration that in the absence of acidification, a larger proportion of live bacteria is passed to the midgut (i.e., repeating the measurements shown in Figure 2 and Figure 5, but in immobilised ants or acidopore-blocked ants). Without that experiment, one cannot fully rule out the following alternative explanation: other immune mechanisms (but not acidification) are responsible for killing bacteria within the crop, and acidification is necessary for other biological functions, so that when ants are simultaneously faced with a bacterial challenge and a lack of acidification, the two deleterious effects combine to produce lower survival even in the absence of a direct effect of acidity on pathogen survival (this type of negative interaction between deleterious effects is often found in conservation studies where a combination of several threats leads to much faster extinction than any single threat would do). We are aware that an additional experiment may be difficult for the authors to perform at this stage, so we would like to offer them a choice. In case it is easy for them to do so, we would encourage them to repeat the measurements shown in Figure 2 and Figure 5 for acidopore-blocked or immobilised ants, as this would strengthen the article's conclusions as well as help shorten it, because some of the caveats currently detailed in the Discussion section would no longer need to be explored. Alternatively, we are still keen to publish the article, but we would then ask the authors to succinctly state in the Discussion section that their evidence on the effect of acidification is indirect and that they cannot rule out at present that other immune mechanisms are responsible for killing the pathogenic bacteria within the crop.

We agree that the proposed additional experiments would provide more direct evidence for a causal relationship between acidification and filtering. Unfortunately, at present and for the foreseeable future, we are unable to perform these experiments. Moreover, to exclude that acidification is necessary for other biological functions and to elucidate the contribution of other immune mechanisms to the inhibitory effect of poison acidified formicine ant crops, more experiments would be sensible in addition to the proposed experiments, which would delay resubmission incalculably.

We therefore opted, as suggested in the decision to our previous submission, to considerably shorten the manuscript, especially in the discussion and to succinctly state in the discussion that our evidence for a causal relationship is indirect and that other immune mechanisms might cause microbial filtering.

Author details

1. Simon Tragust

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Present address

   General Zoology, Hoher Weg 8, Martin-Luther University, Halle, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   simon.tragust@zoologie.uni-halle.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3675-9583

2. Claudia Herrmann

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Jane Häfner

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Ronja Braasch

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Christina Tilgen

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Maria Hoock

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Margarita Artemis Milidakis

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Roy Gross

   Microbiology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, Würzburg, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Heike Feldhaar

   Animal Ecology I, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstraße, Bayreuth, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6797-5126

• 4,722

  Page views

• 356

  Downloads

• 14

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.