Warm periods in repeated cold stresses protect <i>Drosophila</i> against ionoregulatory collapse, chilling injury, and reproductive deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many insects, repeated cold stress, characterized by warm periods that interrupt cold periods, have been found to yield survival benefits over continuous cold stress, but at the cost of reproduction. During cold stress, chill susceptible insects like Drosophila melanogaster suffer from a loss of ion and water balance, and the current model of recovery from chilling posits that re-establishment of ion homeostasis begins upon return to a warm environment, but that it takes minutes to hours for an insect to fully restore homeostasis. Following this ionoregulatory model of chill coma recovery, we predicted that the longer the duration of the warm periods between cold stresses, the better a fly will recover from a subsequent chill coma event and the more likely they will be to survive, but at the cost of fewer offspring. Here, female D. melanogaster were treated to a long continuous cold stress (25 h at 0°C), or experienced the same total time in the cold with repeated short (15 min), or long (120 min) breaks at 23°C. We found that warm periods in general improved survival outcomes, and individuals that recovered for more time in between cold periods had significantly lower rates of injury, faster recovery from chill coma, and produced greater, rather than fewer, offspring. These improvements in chill tolerance were associated with mitigation of ionoregulatory collapse, as flies that experienced either short or long warm periods better maintained low hemolymph [K + ]. Thus, warm periods that interrupt cold exposures improve cold tolerance and fertility in D. melanogaster females relative to a single sustained cold stress, potentially because this time allows for recovery of ion and water homeostasis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".