<i>Wolbachia cifB</i> induces cytoplasmic incompatibility in the malaria mosquito
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wolbachia infections are a fascinating example of reproductive parasitism with strong potential to combat vector-borne diseases, due to their combined ability to spread in insect populations and block pathogen replication. Though the Wolbachia factors mediating the notable reproductive manipulation cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) have now been identified as prophage WO genes cifA and cifB , the relative role of these genes is still intensely debated, with different models claiming that CI requires either both factors or cifB alone. Here we investigated whether cifA and cifB are sufficient to induce conditional sterility in the major malaria vector Anopheles gambiae , a species that appears to have limited susceptibility to invasion by Wolbachia . We report that CI can be fully recapitulated in these mosquitoes, and that cifB is sufficient to cause this reproductive manipulation. cifB -induced sterility is fully rescued by high levels of cifA expression in females. Surprisingly, however, when cifA is highly expressed in males alongside cifB , the CI phenotype is attenuated. cifB strongly impairs fertility also when expressed in the female germline, again mitigated by cifA . These data support a system whereby cifB and cifA must be fine-tuned to exercise CI and rescue, respectively, possibly explaining the limited success of Wolbachia at invading Anopheles . Our findings pave the way towards facilitating Wolbachia infections in anopheline vectors, for use in malaria control strategies.
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".