MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166949970 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1478

Impact of plant nutrients on the relationship between a herbivorous insect and its symbiotic bacteria

2007· article· en· W2166949970 on OpenAlexaff
S. M. Chandler, T. L. Wilkinson, Angela E. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsBiologyAphidPhloemAphisBotanyNutrientInsectSymbiotic bacteriaVicia fabaHerbivoreHost (biology)Acyrthosiphon pisumSymbiosisAphididaeBacteriaEcologyHomopteraPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interactions between herbivorous insects and their symbiotic micro-organisms can be influenced by the plant species on which the insects are reared, but the underlying mechanisms are not understood. Here, we identify plant nutrients, specifically amino acids, as a candidate factor affecting the impact of symbiotic bacteria on the performance of the phloem-feeding aphid Aphis fabae. Aphis fabae grew more slowly on the labiate plant Lamium purpureum than on an alternative host plant Vicia faba, and the negative effect of L. purpureum on aphid growth was consistently exacerbated by the bacterial secondary symbionts Regiella insecticola and Hamiltonella defensa, which attained high densities in L. purpureum-reared aphids. The amino acid content of the phloem sap of L. purpureum was very low; and A. fabae on chemically defined diets of low amino acid content also grew slowly and had elevated secondary symbiont densities. It is suggested that the phloem nutrient profile of L. purpureum promotes deleterious traits in the secondary symbionts and disturbs insect controls over bacterial abundance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations91
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207