Host resistance and tolerance to parasitism: development-dependent fitness consequences in Common Hourglass Tree Frog (<i>Polypedates cruciger</i>) tadpoles exposed to two larval trematodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tolerance and resistance to parasites are defense strategies of host organisms. Here, we tested the development-dependent tolerance and resistance of Polypedates cruciger Blyth, 1852 tadpoles to trematode infection. We exposed the tadpoles at Gosner stages 27, 28–29, and 30–31 to two types of cercariae (furcocercous and pleurolophocercous cercariae of Acanthostomum burminis (Bhalerao, 1926)) under laboratory conditions. To determine tolerance (the ability of a host to limit health effects of a given parasite load), we exposed the tadpoles until all cercariae penetrated the host. As a measure of determining resistance, we exposed tadpoles to cercariae for a limited time and counted the number of cercariae penetrating the tadpoles. The survival of tadpoles exposed at early stages was significantly lower than that of tadpoles exposed at later stages (mixed-effect model, p < 0.05), suggesting an age-dependent tolerance to parasitism. Tadpoles exposed at early stages were also smaller, took longer to metamorphosis, showed lower resistance to parasitism (ANOVA, p < 0.001), and developed axial malformations. In the resistance experiment, fewer parasites penetrated later stage tadpoles than early stage tadpoles. Tadpoles of P. cruciger showed a development-dependent tolerance and resistance to parasitism, resulting in greater survival and fewer malformations when parasitism occurs at late stages.
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".