Influence of Hepatozoon parasites on host-seeking and host-choice behaviour of the mosquitoes Culex territans and Culex pipiens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatozoon species are heteroxenous parasites that commonly infect the blood of vertebrates and various organs of arthropods. Despite their ubiquity, little is known about how these parasites affect host phenotype, including whether or not these parasites induce changes in hosts to increase transmission success. The objectives of this research were to investigate influences of the frog blood parasite Hepatozoon clamatae and the snake blood parasite Hepatozoon sipedon on host-seeking and host-choice behaviour of the mosquitoes Culex territans and Culex pipiens, respectively. During development of H. sipedon in C. pipiens, significantly fewer infected mosquitoes fed on uninfected snakes compared to uninfected mosquitoes. When H. sipedon was mature in C. pipiens, the number of infected and uninfected C. pipiens that fed on snakes was not significantly different. Higher numbers of mosquitoes fed on naturally infected snakes and frogs compared to laboratory-reared, uninfected control animals. However, experiments using only laboratory-raised frogs revealed that infection did not significantly affect host choice by C. territans. Behaviour of C. pipiens in the presence of H. sipedon may increase transmission success of the parasite and provide the first evidence of phenotypic changes in the invertebrate host of Hepatozoon parasites.
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".