Identification and comparative analysis of accessory gland proteins in Orthoptera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessory reproductive gland proteins (Acps) in Drosophila evolve quickly and appear to play an important role in ensuring the fertilization success of males. Moreover, Acps are thought to be involved in establishing barriers to fertilization between closely related species. While accessory glands are known to occur in the males of many insect groups, the proteins that are passed on to females by males during mating have not been well characterized outside of Drosophila. To gain a better understanding of these proteins, we characterized ESTs from the accessory glands of two cricket species, Allonemobius fasciatus and Gryllus firmus. Using an expressed sequence tag (EST) approach, followed by bioinformatic and evolutionary analyses, we found that many proteins are secreted and, therefore, available for transfer to the female during mating. Further, we found that most ESTs are novel, showing little sequence similarity between taxa. Evolutionary analyses suggest that cricket proteins are subject to diversifying selection and indicate that Allonemobius is much less polymorphic than Gryllus. Despite rapid nucleotide sequence divergence, there appears to be functional conservation of protein classes among Drosophila and cricket taxa.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".