MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111646214 · doi:10.1645/12-152.1

The Role of Gamont Entry into Erythrocytes in the Specificity of<i>Hepatozoon</i>Species (Apicomplexa: Adeleida) for Their Frog Hosts

2013· article· en· W2111646214 on OpenAlexaff
Cory M. Dickson, Christopher T. Ogbuah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatozoonApicomplexaBiologyZoologyProtozoaParasite hostingVirologyEcologyMicrobiologyProtozoal diseaseBabesiaMalariaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatozoon species are apicomplexan parasites that infect blood cells and viscera of terrestrial vertebrates. One species, Hepatozoon clamatae, primarily infects green frogs, Rana clamitans , whereas another, Hepatozoon catesbianae, primarily infects bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana , although both species of parasite are capable of infecting either species of frog. The aim of this study was to determine whether the basis for this partial host specificity is manifested at the gamont, or intraerythrocytic, stage of the parasite's life cycle. Blood was drawn from infected frogs and treated in vitro with a saline solution to induce intracellular gamonts to emerge from host erythrocytes. This treated blood was added to in vitro samples of uninfected blood of green frogs and bullfrogs. After 1 hr, samples were analyzed to determine the level of re-entry of the parasites into uninfected erythrocytes. Results obtained using multiple combinations of donor and recipient frogs indicate that extracellular gamonts of both parasite species do not exhibit preference for erythrocytes of 1 frog species over those of another. These results suggest that the basis for the observed host specificity is not determined at the gamont stage and is more likely dependent on another stage in the parasite life cycle.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207