MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990892719 · doi:10.1101/847194

Four QTL underlie resistance to a microsporidian parasite that may drive genome evolution in its <i>Daphnia</i> host

2019· preprint· en· W2990892719 on OpenAlexafffund
Devon Keller, Devin Kirk, Pepijn Luijckx

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiologyDaphniaParasite hostingLocus (genetics)Daphnia magnaGenetic architectureGenomeMicrosporidiaQuantitative trait locusHost (biology)GeneticsParasitismEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeneSpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite its pivotal role in evolutionary and ecological processes the genetic architecture underlying host-parasite interactions remains understudied. Here we use a quantitative trait loci approach to identify regions in the Daphnia magna genome that provide resistance against its microsporidium parasite Ordospora colligata . The probability that Daphnia became infected was affected by a single locus and an interaction between two additional loci. A fourth locus influenced the number of spores that grew within the host. Comparing our findings to previously published genetic work on Daphnia magna revealed that two of these loci may be the same as detected for another microsporidium parasite, suggesting a general immune response to this group of pathogens. More importantly, this comparison revealed that two regions previously identified to be under selection coincided with parasite resistance loci, highlighting the pivotal role parasites may play in shaping the host genome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207