We visually diagnosed terminal infections with a dissecting microscope, measured final body size (at 5× magnification), and collected individuals to quantify spore loads using flow cytometry. We used a DxP10 flow cytometer (Cytek) equipped with a BD FACSort system (Becton Dickinson Biosciences). To isolate mature transmission‐ready spores from algae, animal debris, or immature spores (Stewart Merrill & Caceres, 2018 (link)), we used custom gates based on fluorescence forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC) with 488 and 561 nm lasers and fluorescent beads as standards (SPHERO; AccuCount Fluorescent Particles, 7.0–8.0 μm) at a ratio of 12:1 for each individual's spore solution (1 animal in 300 μL of COMBO). We then verified flow cytometry spore counts by randomly selecting five individuals from each genotype and spore exposure level and manually counting spores using a hemocytometer (for “Standard,” R2 = .91; patterns for all other genotypes were comparable—see Appendix
Quantifying Infection-Feeding Interactions
We visually diagnosed terminal infections with a dissecting microscope, measured final body size (at 5× magnification), and collected individuals to quantify spore loads using flow cytometry. We used a DxP10 flow cytometer (Cytek) equipped with a BD FACSort system (Becton Dickinson Biosciences). To isolate mature transmission‐ready spores from algae, animal debris, or immature spores (Stewart Merrill & Caceres, 2018 (link)), we used custom gates based on fluorescence forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC) with 488 and 561 nm lasers and fluorescent beads as standards (SPHERO; AccuCount Fluorescent Particles, 7.0–8.0 μm) at a ratio of 12:1 for each individual's spore solution (1 animal in 300 μL of COMBO). We then verified flow cytometry spore counts by randomly selecting five individuals from each genotype and spore exposure level and manually counting spores using a hemocytometer (for “Standard,” R2 = .91; patterns for all other genotypes were comparable—see Appendix
Corresponding Organization : University of British Columbia
Other organizations : University of Wisconsin–Madison
Variable analysis
- Infection treatment (0 sp/mL, infected)
- Feeding rate (1 mgC/L for the first 7 days, 2 mgC/L for the rest)
- Proportion of hosts that became infected
- Survivorship of infected hosts relative to control hosts
- Host growth
- Host fecundity
- Transmission potential (spore yield)
- Temperature (22°C)
- Media (15 mL of COMBO)
- Positive control: 0 sp/mL treatment (uninfected hosts)
- Negative control: Not explicitly mentioned
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!