Caterpillar- and Salivary-Specific Modification of Plant Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though there is overlap, plant responses to caterpillar herbivory show distinct variations from mechanical wounding. In particular, effectors in caterpillar oral secretions modify wound-associated plant responses. Previous studies have focused on transcriptional and protein abundance differences in response to caterpillar herbivory. This study investigated Spodoptera exigua caterpillar-specific post-translational modification of Arabidopsis thaliana soluble leaf proteins by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC/ESI/MS/MS). Given that caterpillar labial saliva contains oxidoreductases, such as glucose oxidase, particular attention was paid to redox-associated modifications, such as the oxidation of protein cysteine residues. Caterpillar- and saliva-specific protein modifications were observed. Differential phosphorylation of the jasmonic acid biosynthetic enzyme, lipoxygenase 2, and a chaperonin protein is seen in plants fed upon by caterpillars with intact salivary secretions compared to herbivory by larvae with impaired labial salivary secretions. Often a systemic suppression of photosynthesis is associated with caterpillar herbivory. Of the five proteins modified in a caterpillar-specific manner (a transcription repressor, a DNA-repair enzyme, PS I P700, Rubisco and Rubisco activase), three are associated with photosynthesis. Oxidative modifications are observed, such as caterpillar-specific denitrosylation of Rubisco activase and chaperonin, cysteine oxidation of Rubisco, DNA-repair enzyme, and chaperonin and caterpillar-specific 4-oxo-2-nonenal modification of the DNA-repair enzyme.
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".