An immuno-suppressive aphid saliva protein is delivered into the cytosol of plant mesophyll cells during feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herbivore selection of plant hosts and plant responses to insect colonization have been subjects of intense investigations. A growing body of evidence suggests that for successful colonization to occur, (effector/virulence) proteins in insect saliva must modulate plant defense responses to the benefit of the insect. A range of insect saliva proteins that modulate plant defense responses have been identified, but there is no direct evidence that these proteins are delivered into specific plant tissues and enter plant cells. Aphids and other sap-sucking insects of the order Hemiptera use their specialized mouthparts (stylets) to probe plant mesophyll cells, until they reach the phloem cells for long-term feeding. Here we show by immunogold-labeling of ultrathin sections of aphid feeding sites that an immuno-suppressive aphid effector localizes in the cytoplasm of mesophyll cells near aphid stylets, but not in cells further away from aphid feeding sites. In contrast, another aphid effector protein localizes in the sheaths composed of gelling saliva that surround the aphid stylets. Thus, insects deliver effectors directly into plant tissue. Moreover, different aphid effectors locate extracellularly in the sheath saliva or are introduced into the cytoplasm of plant cells.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".