Experimental increase in predation risk causes a cascading stress response in free-ranging snowshoe hares.

Extensive research confirms that environmental stressors like predation risk can profoundly affect animal condition and physiology. However, there is a lack of experimental research assessing the suite of physiological responses to risk that may arise under realistic field conditions, leaving a fragmented picture of risk-related physiological change and potential downstream consequences on individuals. We increased predation risk in free-ranging snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) during two consecutive summers by simulating natural chases using a model predator and monitored hares intensively via radio-telemetry and physiological assays, including measures designed to assess changes in stress physiology and overall condition. Compared to controls, risk-augmented hares had 25.8% higher free plasma cortisol, 15.9% lower cortisol-binding capacity, a greater neutrophil:lymphocyte skew, and a 10.4% increase in glucose. Despite these changes, intra-annual changes in two distinct condition indices, were unaffected by risk exposure. We infer risk-augmented hares compensated for changes in their stress physiology through either compensatory foraging and/or metabolic changes, which allowed them to have comparable condition to controls. Although differences between controls and risk-augmented hares were consistent each year, both groups had heightened stress measures during the second summer, likely reflecting an increase in natural stressors (i.e., predators) in the environment. We show that increased predation risk in free-ranging animals can profoundly alter stress physiology and that compensatory responses may contribute to limiting effects of such changes on condition. Ultimately, our results also highlight the importance of biologically relevant experimental risk manipulations in the wild as a means of assessing physiological responses to natural stressors.

Sequencing of VDJ genes in Lepus americanus confirms a correlation between VHn expression and the leporid species continent of origin.

Leporid VH genes used in the generation of their primary antibody repertoire exhibit highly divergent lineages. For the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) four VHa lineages have been described, the a1, a2, a3 and a4. Hares (Lepus spp.) and cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) express one VHa lineage each, the a2L and the a5, respectively, along with a more ancient lineage, the Lepus spp. sL and S. floridanus sS. Both the European rabbit and the Lepus europaeus use a third lineage, VHn, in a low proportion of their VDJ rearrangements. The VHn genes are a conserved ancestral polymorphism that is being maintained in the leporid genome.Their usage in a low proportion of VDJ rearrangements by both European rabbit and L. europaeus but not S. floridanus has been argued to be a remnant of an ancient European leporid immunologic response to pathogens. To address this hypothesis, in this study we sequenced VDJ rearranged genes for another North American leporid, L. americanus. Our results show that L. americanus expressed these genes less frequently and in a highly modified fashion compared to the European Lepus species. Our results suggest that the American leporid species use a different VH repertoire than the European species which may be related with an immune adaptation to different environmental conditions, such as different pathogenic agents.

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer-review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer-review system are merely sticking-plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.