Modulating the Modulators: Parasites, Neuromodulators and Host Behavioral Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromodulators can resculpt neural circuits, giving an animal the behavioral flexibility it needs to survive in a complex changing world. This ability, however, provides parasites with a potential mechanism for manipulating host behavior. This paper reviews three invertebrate host-parasite systems to examine whether parasites can change host behavior by secreting neuromodulators. The parasitic wasp, Cotesia congregata, suppresses host feeding partly by inducing the host (Manduca sexta) to increase the octopamine concentration in its hemolymph. The increased octopamine concentration disrupts the motor pattern produced by the frontal ganglion, preventing the ingestion of food. Polymorphus paradoxus (Acanthocephalan) alters the escape behavior of its host, Gammarus lacustris (Crustacea), possibly through an effect on the host's serotonergic system. The trematode Trichobilharzia ocellata inhibits egg-laying in its snail host (Lymnaea stagnalis), partly by inducing the host to secrete schistosomin. Schistosomin decreases electrical excitability of the caudodorsal cells. The parasite also alters gene expression for some neuromodulators within the host's central nervous system. In at least two of these three examples, it appears that the host, not the parasite, produces the neuromodulators that alter host behavior. Producing physiologically potent concentrations of neuromodulators may be energetically expensive for many parasites. Parasites may exploit indirect less energetically expensive methods of altering host behavior. For example, parasites may induce the host's immune system to produce the appropriate neuromodulators. In many parasites, the ability to manipulate host behavior may have evolved from adaptations designed to circumvent the host's immune system. Immune-neural-behavioral connections may be pre-adapted for parasitic manipulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".