Caterpillar salivary enzymes: "eliciting" a response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants exhibit remarkable plasticity in their ability to differentiate between herbivorous insect species and subtly adjust their defense responses to target distinct pests. One key mechanism used by plants to recognize herbivorous caterpillars is elicitors present in their oral secretions; however, these elicitors not only cause the induction of plant defenses but recent evidence suggests that they may also suppress plant responses. The absence of “expected changes” in induced defense responses of insect-infested plants has been attributed to hydrogen peroxide produced by caterpillar salivary glucose oxidase (GOX). Activity of this enzyme is variable among caterpillar species; it was detected in two generalist caterpillars, the beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua) and the bertha armyworm (Mamestra configurata), but not in other generalist or specialist caterpillar species tested. In the beet armyworm, GOX activity fluctuated over larval development with high activity associated with the salivary glands of fourth instars. Larval salivary GOX activity of the beet armyworm and the bertha armyworm was observed to be significantly higher in caterpillars reared on artificial diet as compared with those reared on Medicago truncatula plants. This implies that a factor in the diet is involved in the regulation of caterpillar salivary enzyme activity. Therefore, plant diet may be regulating caterpillar oral elicitors that are involved in the regulation of plant defense responses: our goal is to understand these two processes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".