MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4385358759 · doi:10.1242/jeb.246347

Muscle boosts tobacco hornworm immunity, but at a cost

2023· article· en· W4385358759 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésManduca sextaCreaturesBiologyTollImmunityImmune systemTask (project management)InsectNeuroscienceImmunologyEcologyManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Multi-tasking is in all parts of our lives, from fiddling with phones when walking to managing homelife and careers, but we didn't invent priority juggling. Shelley Adamo from Dalhousie University, Canada, explains that seemingly unrelated tissues can multi-task, playing pivotal roles in apparently unconnected situations. For example, the immune system of insects requires large injections of glucose when fighting an infection, but much of the essential fuel comes from an unexpected source: muscle. So how much of a toll does warding off illness take on the muscles of insects, which the creatures depend on for protection and movement? For example, when under attack, tobacco hornworms – the caterpillars of tobacco hawkmoths (Manduca sexta) – thrash from side to side. Might fighting an infection weaken the caterpillars’ muscles and their ability to stand up for themselves? Adamo and Laura McMillan, with a team of graduate students and undergraduate helpers (all from Dalhousie University), decided to find out whether mounting an immune response impacts tobacco hornworm muscles.Knowing that, in insects, infection triggers the release of immune proteins and other compounds from an organ known as the fat body (the insect equivalent of the liver), the team set out to discover whether some of the key genes involved in the infection fighting machine are switched on in muscle when tobacco hornworms suffer an infection. The team injected the caterpillars with a cocktail of dead fungus and bacteria – to trick the insects into trying to fend off an infection without making them ill – to find out what they did. Sure enough, these key genes were activated in the caterpillar muscle after the fake infection, so the muscles do contribute to the infection response. And when the team took a closer look, the muscles also showed activation of the genes encoding infection-fighting molecules that contributed to their protection. But can muscle also liberate glucose from its glycogen stores, releasing it into the insect's blood to fuel the fight?This time, the team collected the caterpillars’ muscles after injection of the pathogen cocktail and, sure enough, the amount of glycogen stored in the muscle, ready to be converted into glucose, fell significantly. The caterpillars appeared to be releasing glycogen from their muscles to fight the simulated infection. And, when the team tricked healthy caterpillars into thinking that they were being attacked by a bird, using tweezers, the insect's muscle glycogen levels crashed as they fought back. However, when they tested how much glycogen the fake-infected insects released from muscle when under attack, it was less than when the insect was fighting an infection alone, as though the muscle was holding back some of its glycogen from combating the infection in the hope of improving its strength to fend off predators (which don't hold back just because their prey is poorly).The team then checked how strong the insects were having received the mock infection by tricking them again into defending themselves against a tweezer attack. The insects that had been exposed to the fake infection were physically weaker after being pecked with tweezers and less able to fend off parasitic wasps that wanted to lay eggs on their luscious bodies. So, tobacco hornworms pay a price for co-opting their muscles to fend off infection. While they benefit from the boost to their immune response provided by glycogen from muscle, this takes a toll on the caterpillar's ability to defend itself from physical attack. This inability to defend themselves is an unintended consequence of fighting infection, when multitasking muscle steps in to provide support.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental BiologyMême sujetInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsTravaux en français237 207