MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reassessing the role of defensin in the innate immune response of the mosquito, <i>Aedes aegypti</i>

2004· article· en· W2140113867 on OpenAlexaff
Lyric C. Bartholomay, Jeremy F. Fuchs, Lingxin Cheng, Eric T. Beck, Jacopo Vizioli, Carl Lowenberger, Bruce M. Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInsect Molecular Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDefensinBiologyAedes aegyptiInnate immune systemImmune systemMicrobiologyCecropinImmunityBacteriaVirologyImmunologyAntimicrobial peptidesGeneticsAntimicrobial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defensin is the predominant inducible immune peptide in Aedes aegypti. In spite of its activity against Gram-positive bacteria in vitro, defensin expression is detected in mosquitoes inoculated with Gram-positive or negative bacteria, or with filarial worms. Defensin transcription and expression are dependent upon bacterial dose; however, translation is inconsistent with transcription because peptide is detectable only in mosquitoes inoculated with large doses. In vitro translation assays provide further evidence for post-transcriptional regulation of defensin. Clearance assays show that a majority of bacteria are cleared before defensin is detected. In gene silencing experiments, no significant difference in mortality was observed between defensin-deficient and control mosquitoes after bacteria inoculation. These studies suggest that defensin may have an alternative function in mosquito immunity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations79
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsect Molecular BiologySame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207