Effect of glycoinositolphospholipids on the growth and differentiation of<i>Trypanosoma cruzi</i>subpopulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have analyzed the biological effects of glycoinositolphospholipids (GIPLs) derived from Trypanosoma cruzi Chagas, 1909 isolates (G-645 and C-48) on the behavior of clone Dm 28c and the Y strain during their extracellular development in vitro and in the invertebrate host Rhodnius prolixus Stål, 1859. In vitro, a direct correlation between the presence of GIPLs and proliferation of both Dm 28c and the Y strain was observed. The GIPLs purified from strain G-645 induced higher differences in the levels of growth of clone Dm 28c when compared with GIPLs purified from C-48 or Leptomonas samueli Carvalho, 1973. Differentiation in the presence of G-645 GIPLs was significantly reduced (48 h), while a minor effect was observed with GIPLs from C-48 (72 h). Parasites adhered preferentially to areas on slides coated with GIPLs from G-645 but not GIPLs from C-48. Rhodnius prolixus fed with GIPLs from G-645 or paraformaldehyde-fixed G-645 parasites, coincident with or after establishment of Dm 28c infection, presented different growth and differentiation patterns compared with control bugs. Our data suggest the occurrence of intraspecific cooperation and (or) competition among the different subpopulations that make up a specific T. cruzi strain.
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".