MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087952796 · doi:10.1242/jeb.013136

Competition between immune function and lipid transport for the protein apolipophorin III leads to stress-induced immunosuppression in crickets

2008· article· en· W2087952796 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley A. Adamo, Janet L. Roberts, Russell H. Easy, Neil W. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine BiosciencesDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunosuppressionHemolymphImmune systemBiologyCompetition (biology)Cell biologyImmunologyBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intense physical activity results in transient immunosuppression in a wide range of animals. We tested the hypothesis that competition between immune function and lipid transport for the protein apolipophorin III (apoLpIII) can cause transient immunosuppression in crickets. Both flying, an energetically demanding behavior, and an immune challenge reduced the amount of monomeric (free) apoLpIII in the hemolymph of crickets. Because both immune function and flying depleted free apoLpIII, these two phenomena could be in competition for this protein. We showed that immune function was sensitive to the amount of free apoLpIII in the hemolymph. Reducing the amount of free apoLpIII in the hemolymph using adipokinetic hormone produced immunosuppression. Increasing apoLpIII levels after flight by pre-loading animals with trehalose reduced immunosuppression. Increasing post-flight apoLpIII levels by injecting purified apoLpIII also reduced flight-induced immunosuppression. These results show that competition between lipid transport and immune function for the same protein can produce transient immunosuppression after flight-or-fight behavior. Intertwined physiological systems can produce unexpected trade-offs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations181
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207