Eating when ill is risky: immune defense impairs food detoxification in the caterpillar,<i>Manduca sexta</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting an immune response consumes resources, which should lead to increased feeding. However, activating the immune system reduces feeding (i.e. illness-induced anorexia) in both vertebrates and invertebrates, suggesting that it may be beneficial. We suggest that illness-induced anorexia may be an adaptive response to conflicts between immune defense and food detoxification. We found that activating an immune response in the caterpillar Manduca sexta increased its susceptibility to the toxin permethrin. Conversely, a sublethal dose of permethrin reduced resistance to the bacterium Serratia marcescens, demonstrating a negative interaction between detoxification and immune defense. Immune system activation and toxin challenge each depleted the amount of glutathione in the hemolymph. Increasing glutathione concentration in the hemolymph increased survival for both toxin and immune+toxin challenged groups. The results of this rescue experiment suggest that decreased glutathione availability, such as occurs during an immune response, impairs detoxification. We also found that the expression of some detoxification genes were not upregulated during a combined immune-toxin challenge, although they were when animals received a toxin challenge alone. These results suggest that immune defense reduces food detoxification capacity. Illness-induced anorexia may protect animals by decreasing exposure to food toxins when detoxification is impaired.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".