Can the behaviour of threespine stickleback parasitized with <i>Schistocephalus solidus</i> be replicated by manipulating host physiology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sticklebacks infected by the parasitic flatworm Schistocephalus solidus show dramatic changes in phenotype, including a loss of species-typical behavioural responses to predators. The timing of host behaviour change coincides with the development of infectivity of the parasite to the final host (a piscivorous bird), making it an ideal model for studying the mechanisms of infection-induced behavioural modification. However, whether the loss of host anti-predator behaviour results from direct manipulation by the parasite, or is a by-product (e.g. host immune response) or side effect of infection (e.g. energetic loss), remains controversial. To understand the physiological mechanisms that generate these behavioural changes, we quantified the behavioural profiles of experimentally infected fish and attempted to replicate these in non-parasitized fish by exposing them to treatments including immunity activation and fasting, or by pharmacologically inhibiting the stress axis. All fish were screened for the following behaviours: activity, water depth preference, sociability, phototaxis, anti-predator response and latency to feed. We were able to change individual behaviours with certain treatments. Our results suggest that the impact of S. solidus on the stickleback might be of a multifactorial nature. The behaviour changes observed in infected fish might result from the combined effects of modifying the serotonergic axis, lack of energy and activation of the immune system.
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 | 0.000 |
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".