Implication of the <i>myo</i>‐inositol pathway in behavioural alterations of infected threespine sticklebacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Threespine sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus infected with the tapeworm Schistocephalus solidus display impairments in their anti‐predator responses. They also have increased expression of the gene encoding the IMPase 1 enzyme in their brains, which is part of a key step in myo‐inositol synthesis. IMPase 1 and myo‐inositol levels are the targets of lithium treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. Although promising candidates, we do not know if IMPase 1 and myo‐inositol are directly implicated in the changes in risky behaviours measured in Schistocephalus‐infected fish. Understanding the molecular mechanisms directly or indirectly involved in these behavioural alterations is crucial to understand the evolution of host–parasite interactions. Here, we increased myo‐inositol levels of uninfected fish and inhibited IMPase 1 activity in infected fish to test the prediction that it would decrease and increase their anti‐predator behaviour respectively. We found that uninfected fish with increased myo‐inositol levels (by injecting exogenous myo‐inositol or by inducing endogenous production using an osmotic challenge) did not decrease their anti‐predator responses. However, infected fish treated with lithium chloride had some of their anti‐predator behaviours restored, but not all. They spent less time swimming close to the surface, showed lowered activity, had a higher latency to feed in a novel environment and spent more time frozen after a predator attack. Our results suggest that the target of lithium treatment is implicated in the risky behaviours of infected fish and supports the idea that the parasite‐associated alteration in behaviour has a multifactorial nature. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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".