Effect of starvation on the accumulation of <i>Cf</i>DAP and <i>Cf</i>DAP-like proteins in post-diapause <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> and diapause-free <i>Choristoneura occidentalis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, Palli et al. found that in the eastern spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana, two hexameric proteins termed CfDAP1 and CfDAP2 are expressed abundantly before and during diapause. To determine whether the accumulation of these proteins in early instars is a direct consequence of the diapause phenomenon, we assessed the abundance of CfDAP-like proteins in first (L1), second (L2), and third (L3) instars of a diapause-free strain of the closely related western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis. Using sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and Western-blot analyses of L2 whole-body proteins, a CfDAP-specific antiserum reacted with two C. occidentalis proteins displaying apparent molecular masses identical with those of CfDAP1 and CfDAP2. Among the three larval stadia examined, CfDAP-like proteins accumulated to significant levels only in the first two, with enhanced accumulation observed in L2s starved from the time of hatching. Accumulation of CfDAP1 and CfDAP2 in post-diapause C. fumiferana L2s was affected similarly by food availability. Thus, the data presented here, combined with those of Palli et al., suggest that expression of CfDAP and CfDAP-like proteins in early larval life is more or less limited to L1 and L2, and is associated with starvation stress imposed either experimentally or by elements of the life cycle (i.e., diapause).
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".