What makes a host profitable? Parasites balance host nutritive resources against immunity.

Numerous host qualities can modulate parasite fitness, and among these, host nutritive resources and immunity are of prime importance. Indeed, parasite fitness increases with the amount of nutritive resources extracted from the host body and decreases with host immune response. To maximize fitness, parasites have therefore to balance these two host components. Yet, because host nutritive resources and immunity both increase with host body condition, it is unclear whether parasites perform better on hosts in prime, intermediate, or poor condition. We investigated blood meal size and survival of the ectoparasitic louse fly Crataerina melbae in relation to body condition and cutaneous immune response of their Alpine swift (Apus melba) nestling hosts. Louse flies took a smaller blood meal and lived a shorter period of time when feeding on nestlings that were experimentally food deprived or had their cutaneous immune response boosted with methionine. Consistent with these results, louse fly survival was the highest when feeding on nonexperimental nestlings in intermediate body condition. Our findings emphasize that although hosts in poor condition had a reduced immunocompetence, parasites may have avoided them because individuals in poor condition did not provide adequate resources. These findings highlight the fact that giving host immunocompetence primary consideration can result in a biased appraisal of host-parasite interactions.

Accurate memory for object location by individuals with intellectual disability: Absolute spatial tagging instead of configural processing?

Using head-mounted eye tracker material, we assessed spatial recognition abilities (e.g., reaction to object permutation, removal or replacement with a new object) in participants with intellectual disabilities. The "Intellectual Disabilities (ID)" group (n=40) obtained a score totalling a 93.7% success rate, whereas the "Normal Control" group (n=40) scored 55.6% and took longer to fix their attention on the displaced object. The participants with an intellectual disability thus had a more accurate perception of spatial changes than controls. Interestingly, the ID participants were more reactive to object displacement than to removal of the object. In the specific test of novelty detection, however, the scores were similar, the two groups approaching 100% detection. Analysis of the strategies expressed by the ID group revealed that they engaged in more systematic object checking and were more sensitive than the control group to changes in the structure of the environment. Indeed, during the familiarisation phase, the "ID" group explored the collection of objects more slowly, and fixed their gaze for a longer time upon a significantly lower number of fixation points during visual sweeping.