MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202043217 · doi:10.1017/s003118202100161x

Chemotactic and temperature-dependent responses of the Strongyloidoidea superfamily of nematodes

2021· article· en· W3202043217 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueParasitology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMax-Planck-GesellschaftDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsChemotaxisHost (biology)OlfactionAttractionParasite hostingStimulationRange (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host-seeking behaviour and how a parasite identifies the correct host to infect remains a poorly understood area of parasitology. What is currently known is that host sensation and seeking behaviour is formed from a complex mixture of chemo-, thermo- and mechanosensory behaviours, of which chemosensation is the best studied. Previous studies of olfaction in parasitic nematodes suggested that this behaviour appears to be more closely related to target host and infection mode than phylogeny. However, there has not yet been a study comparing the chemotactic and temperature-dependent behaviours of very closely related parasitic and non-parasitic nematodes. To this end, we examined the temperature-dependent and chemotactic responses of the Strongyloidoidea superfamily of nematodes. We found differences in temperature response between the different species and within infective larvae. Chemotactic responses were highly divergent, with different attraction profiles between all species studied. When examining direct stimulation with fur, we found that it was insufficient to cause an attractive response. Overall, our results support the notion that olfactory sensation is more closely related to lifestyle and host range than phylogeny, and that multiple cues are required to initiate host-seeking behaviour.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParasitologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207