MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The fitness of drug‐resistant malaria parasites in a rodent model: multiplicity of infection

2011· article· en· W1504597425 on OpenAlexaff
Silvie Huijben, Derek G. Sim, William A. Nelson, Andrew F. Read

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesScience and Technology Directorate
KeywordsBiologyPlasmodium chabaudiMalariaDrug resistanceHost (biology)clone (Java method)Avian malariaPlasmodium (life cycle)VirologyEvolutionary biologyZoologyEcologyImmunologyMicrobiologyParasite hostingGeneticsPlasmodium falciparumParasitemiaDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malaria infections normally consist of more than one clonally replicating lineage. Within-host interactions between sensitive and resistant parasites can have profound effects on the evolution of drug resistance. Here, using the Plasmodium chabaudi mouse malaria model, we ask whether the costs and benefits of resistance are affected by the number of co-infecting strains competing with a resistant clone. We found strong competitive suppression of resistant parasites in untreated infections and marked competitive release following treatment. The magnitude of competitive suppression depended on competitor identity. However, there was no overall effect of the diversity of susceptible parasites on the extent of competitive suppression or release. If these findings generalize, then transmission intensity will impact on resistance evolution because of its effect on the frequency of mixed infections, not because of its effect on the distribution of clones per host. This would greatly simplify the computational problems of adequately capturing within-host ecology in models of drug resistance evolution in malaria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207