Clonemate cotransmission supports a role for kin selection in a puppeteer parasite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in ants. Specifically, cotransmission of larval clonemates from a snail first host to an ant second host is presumed to lead to a puppeteer parasite in the ant's brain that has clonemates in the ant abdomen. Clonal relatedness between the actor (brain fluke) and recipients (abdomen flukes) enables kin selection of the parasite's host-manipulating trait, which facilitates transmission of the recipients to the final host. However, the hypothesis that asexual reproduction in the snail leads to a high abundance of clonemates in the same ant is untested. Clonal relationships between the manipulator in the brain and the nonmanipulators in the abdomen are also untested. We provide empirical data on the lancet fluke's clonal diversity within its ant host. In stark contrast to other trematodes, which do not exhibit the same host-manipulating behavioral trait, the lancet fluke has a high abundance of clonemates. Moreover, our data support existing theory that indicates that the altruistic behavior can evolve even in the presence of multiple clones within the same ant host. Importantly, our analyses conclusively show clonemate cotransmission into ants, and, as such, we find support for kin selection to drive the evolution and maintenance of this iconic host manipulation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".