Host Respiration Rate and Injury-Derived Cues Drive Host Preference by an Ectoparasite of Fruit Flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host bioenergetics and energy fluxes can be applied to measure the ecological and physiological effects of parasitism. By measuring changes in host metabolic rate, one can estimate the physiological costs of infection. Additionally, metabolic rate dictates the rate of resource conversion within a host and, by extension, the resources available to a parasite. We hypothesize that parasites are selected to respond to cues that indicate high resource availability, that is, host metabolic state. We investigated whether an ectoparasite mite (Macrocheles subbadius) can differentiate between potential hosts (Drosophilia nigrospiracula) on the basis of relative carbon dioxide output as measured by respirometry. In pairwise choice tests, mites were allowed to choose between two size-matched fruit flies with differing metabolic rates or levels of CO2 output. Our results showed that mites preferentially infect flies with relatively higher respiration rates. Accordingly, we investigated whether fly respiratory rate (measured by CO2 production) changes in response to injury, potentially explaining a previously reported preference for injured flies. We also tested whether chemical cues released during injury influence preference for injured hosts. We determined that fly exudate (mostly consisting of hemolymph) applied to an uninjured fly released at the site of injury significantly increased the likelihood of infection, but injury did not significantly change the CO2 output of the flies. Our results suggest that parasites are relying on chemical cues not only for host finding but also to discriminate between hosts on the basis of the rate of respiration, with potentially important implications for the metabolic theory of ecology.
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".