MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> Cry1 Toxins in Insect Hemolymph and Their Neurotoxicity in Brain Cells of <i>Lymantria dispar</i>

2001· article· en· W2125320332 on OpenAlexaff
Anja Cerstiaens, Peter Verleyen, Jeroen Van Rie, Emmy Van Kerkhove, Jean‐Louis Schwartz, Raynald Laprade, Arnold De Loof, Liliane Schoofs

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymantria disparBacillus thuringiensisHemolymphBiologyMicrobiologyInsectDisparZoologyBacteriaLepidoptera genitaliaBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little information is available on the systemic effects of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in the hemocoel of insects. In order to test whether B. thuringiensis-activated toxins elicit a toxic response in the hemocoel, we measured the effect of intrahemocoelic injections of several Cry1 toxins on the food intake, growth, and survival of Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera) and Neobellieria bullata (Diptera) larvae. Injection of Cry1C was highly toxic to the Lymantria larvae and resulted in the complete inhibition of food intake, growth arrest, and death in a dose-dependent manner. Cry1Aa and Cry1Ab (5 microg/0.2 g [fresh weight] [g fresh wt]) also affected growth and food intake but were less toxic than Cry1C (0.5 microg/0.2 g fresh wt). Cry1E and Cry1Ac (5 microg/0.2 g fresh wt) had no toxic effect upon injection. Cry1C was also highly toxic to N. bullata larvae upon injection. Injection of 5 microg/0.2 g fresh wt resulted in rapid paralysis, followed by hemocytic melanization and death. Lower concentrations delayed pupariation or gave rise to malformation of the puparium. Finally, Cry1C was toxic to brain cells of Lymantria in vitro. The addition of Cry1C (20 microg/ml) to primary cultures of Lymantria brain cells resulted in rapid lysis of the cultured neurons.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207