Binding of Leishmania infantum Lipophosphoglycan to the Midgut Is Not Sufficient To Define Vector Competence in <i>Lutzomyia longipalpis</i> Sand Flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that the presence of LPG is sufficient to define the vector competence of restrictive sand fly vectors with respect to Leishmania parasites. However, the permissiveness of other sand flies with respect to multiple Leishmania species suggests that other factors might define vector competence for these vectors. In this study, we investigated the underpinnings of Leishmania infantum survival and development in its natural vector, Lutzomyia longipalpis . We found that LPG-mediated midgut binding persists in late-stage parasites. This observation is of relevance for the understanding of vector-parasite molecular interactions and suggests that only a subset of infective metacyclic-stage parasites (metacyclics) lose their ability to attach to the midgut, with implications for parasite transmission dynamics. However, our data also demonstrate that LPG is not a determining factor in Leishmania infantum retention in the midgut of Lutzomyia longipalpis , a permissive vector. Rather, LPG appears to be more important in protecting some parasite strains from the toxic environment generated during blood meal digestion in the insect gut. Thus, the relevance of LPG in parasite development in permissive vectors appears to be a complex issue and should be investigated on a strain-specific basis.
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".