MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015668494 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231047

Metagenomic analysis of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes from Grenada, West Indies

2020· article· en· W3015668494 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria E. Ramos‐Niño, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Korin Eckstrom, Scott Tighe, Lindsey M. Hattaway, Andy N. Hsueh, Diana M. Stone, Julie A. Dragon, Sonia Cheetham

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsCulex quinquefasciatusAedes aegyptiBiologyVector (molecular biology)AedesDengue feverMosquito controlEcologyVirologyMalariaGeneticsLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) (Diptera: Culicidae) and Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1823 (Diptera: Culicidae) are two major vectors of arthropod-borne pathogens in Grenada, West Indies. As conventional vector control methods present many challenges, alternatives are urgently needed. Manipulation of mosquito microbiota is emerging as a field for the development of vector control strategies. Critical to this vector control approach is knowledge of the microbiota of these mosquitoes and finding candidate microorganisms that are common to the vectors with properties that could be used in microbiota modification studies. Results showed that bacteria genera including Asaia, Escherichia, Pantoea, Pseudomonas, and Serratia are common to both major arboviral vectors in Grenada and have previously been shown to be good candidates for transgenetic studies. Also, for the first time, the presence of Grenada mosquito rhabdovirus 1 is reported in C. quinquefasciatus.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207