Large Mammals Have More Powerful Antibacterial Defenses Than Expected from Their Metabolic Rates.

AbstractTerrestrial mammals span seven orders of magnitude in body size, ranging from the <2-g Etruscan pygmy shrew () to the >3,900-kg African elephant (). Although body size profoundly affects the behavior, physiology, ecology, and evolution of species, how investment in functional immune defenses changes with body size across species is unknown. Here, we (1) developed a novel 12-point dilution curve approach to describe and compare antibacterial capacity against three bacterial species among >160 terrestrial species of mammals and (2) tested published predictions about the scaling of immune defenses. Our study focused on the safety factor hypothesis, which predicts that broad, early-acting immune defenses should scale hypermetrically with body mass. However, our three statistical approaches demonstrated that antibacterial activity in sera across mammals exhibits isometry; killing capacity did not change with body size across species. Intriguingly, this result indicates that the serum of a large mammal is less hospitable to bacteria than would be predicted by its metabolic rates. In other words, if metabolic rates underlie the rates of physiological reactions as postulated by the metabolic theory of ecology, large species should have disproportionately lower antibacterial capacity than small species, but they do not. These results have direct implications for effectively modeling the evolution of immune defenses and identifying potential reservoir hosts of pathogens.