The secretome of a parasite alters its host's behaviour but does not recapitulate the behavioural response to infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites with complex life cycles have been proposed to manipulate the behaviour of their intermediate hosts to increase the probability of reaching their final host. The cause of these drastic behavioural changes could be manipulation factors released by the parasite in its environment (the secretome), but this has rarely been assessed. We studied a non-cerebral parasite, the cestode Schistocephalus solidus , and its intermediate host, the threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), whose response to danger becomes significantly diminished when infected. These altered behaviours appear only during late infection, when the worm is ready to reproduce in its final avian host. Sympatric host–parasite pairs show higher infection success for parasites, suggesting that the secretome effects could differ for allopatric host–parasite pairs with independent evolutionary histories. We tested the effects of secretome exposure on behaviour by using secretions from the early and late infection of S. solidus and by injecting them in healthy sticklebacks from a sympatric and allopatric population. Contrary to our prediction, secretome from late infection worms did not result in more risky behaviours, but secretome from early infection resulted in more cautious hosts, only in fish from the allopatric population. Our results suggest that the secretome of S. solidus contains molecules that can affect host behaviour, that the causes underlying the behavioural changes in infected sticklebacks are multifactorial and that local adaptation between host–parasite pairs may extend to the response to the parasite's secretome content.
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".