Evidence for non-colligative function of small cryoprotectants in a freeze-tolerant insect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeze tolerance, the ability to survive internal ice formation, facilitates survival of some insects in cold habitats. Low-molecular-weight cryoprotectants such as sugars, polyols and amino acids are hypothesized to facilitate freeze tolerance, but their in vivo function is poorly understood. Here, we use a combination of metabolomics and manipulative experiments in vivo and ex vivo to examine the function of multiple cryoprotectants in the spring field cricket Gryllus veletis. Cold-acclimated G. veletis are freeze-tolerant and accumulate myo-inositol, proline and trehalose in their haemolymph and fat body. Injecting freeze-tolerant crickets with proline and trehalose increases survival of freezing to lower temperatures or for longer times. Similarly, exogenous myo-inositol and trehalose increase ex vivo freezing survival of fat body cells from freeze-tolerant crickets. No cryoprotectant (alone or in combination) is sufficient to confer freeze tolerance on non-acclimated, freeze-intolerant G. veletis. Given that each cryoprotectant differentially impacts survival in the frozen state, we conclude that small cryoprotectants are not interchangeable and likely function non-colligatively in insect freeze tolerance. Our study is the first to experimentally demonstrate the importance of non-colligative cryoprotectant function for insect freeze tolerance both in vivo and ex vivo, with implications for choosing new molecules for cryopreservation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".