MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542372422 · doi:10.3390/insects7040060

Sodium Channel Mutations and Pyrethroid Resistance in Aedes aegypti

2016· review· en· W2542372422 on OpenAlexaff
Yuzhe Du, Yoshiko Nomura, Boris S. Zhorov, Ke Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsKnockdown resistancePyrethroidBiologyAedes aegyptiSodium channelGene knockdownGeneticsAedesDengue feverGeneVirologyToxicologyBiotechnologySodiumPesticideBotanyEcologyLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pyrethroid insecticides are widely used to control insect pests and human disease vectors. Voltage-gated sodium channels are the primary targets of pyrethroid insecticides. Mutations in the sodium channel have been shown to be responsible for pyrethroid resistance, known as knockdown resistance (kdr), in various insects including mosquitoes. In Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the principal urban vectors of dengue, zika, and yellow fever viruses, multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms in the sodium channel gene have been found in pyrethroid-resistant populations and some of them have been functionally confirmed to be responsible for kdr in an in vitro expression system, Xenopus oocytes. This mini-review aims to provide an update on the identification and functional characterization of pyrethroid resistance-associated sodium channel mutations from Aedes aegypti. The collection of kdr mutations not only helped us develop molecular markers for resistance monitoring, but also provided valuable information for computational molecular modeling of pyrethroid receptor sites on the sodium channel.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations182
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207