Haemocyte‐mediated immunity in insects: Cells, processes and associated components in the fight against pathogens and parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The host defence of insects includes a combination of cellular and humoral responses. The cellular arm of the insect innate immune system includes mechanisms that are directly mediated by haemocytes (e.g., phagocytosis, nodulation and encapsulation). In addition, melanization accompanying coagulation, clot formation and wound healing, nodulation and encapsulation processes leads to the formation of cytotoxic redox-cycling melanin precursors and reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. However, demarcation between cellular and humoral immune reactions as two distinct categories is not straightforward. This is because many humoral factors affect haemocyte functions and haemocytes themselves are an important source of many humoral molecules. There is also a considerable overlap between cellular and humoral immune functions that span from recognition of foreign intruders to clot formation. Here, we review these immune reactions starting with the cellular mechanisms that limit haemolymph loss and participate in wound healing and clot formation and advancing to cellular functions that are critical in restricting pathogen movement and replication. This information is important because it highlights that insect cellular immunity is controlled by a multilayered system, different components of which are activated by different pathogens or during the different stages of the infection.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".