Teratocytes growth pattern reflects host suitability in a host–parasitoid assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In some parasitoid species, the serosa membrane breaks apart at hatching and produces teratocyte cells that assume various functions (immunossupression, secretion and nutrition) mediating host–parasitoid relationships. Teratocyte growth pattern may thus reflect the host suitability for a parasitoid. The teratocyte growth pattern (increase in size and number of teratocytes as a function of time) is studied and used as an indirect measure of fitness to compare the development of the endoparasitoid Dinocampus coccinellae in a marginal host, the coccinellid Harmonia axyridis , and in a suitable host, Coleomegilla maculata . Indirect measures of fitness recorded in both host species confirm that C. maculata is a suitable host for D. coccinellae contrary to the marginal host H. axyridis. According to regression analysis, teratocyte numbers decrease linearly whereas teratocyte size increases linearly with time in the suitable host C. maculata (larvae or adults). In the marginal host, parasitism occurs only in the larval stage where a delay in the parasitoid larval development is observed. Increase in teratocyte size is also highly variable. The teratocyte growth pattern of the parasitoid in the marginal host does not follow the linear model found in the suitable host. Teratocyte growth pattern may be a useful criterion to evaluate host‐suitability and host range of parasitoids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".