DNA sequencing confirms meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) and muscle worm (Parelaphostrongylus andersoni) in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): Implications for moose (Alces alces) management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, some moose populations are declining, and meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) infections may be contributing. Moose are aberrant hosts for meningeal worm and develop severe pathology whereas white-tailed deer (WTD) are definitive hosts that experience minimal pathology and spread parasite larvae into the environment. Analyses of harvested WTD heads confirmed meningeal worm in Western Manitoba, Canada including in areas where moose have experienced population declines and are currently of management concern. The prevalence of larval meningeal worm from WTD feces in these areas are unknown, particularly because the dorsal-spined larvae (DSL) are morphologically indistinguishable from muscle worm (Parelaphostrongylus andersoni). To assess transmission risk of DSL, we investigated the spatial and temporal variation of prevalence in WTD feces from four areas (two with historical moose population declines and two without) sampled across two summers. We predicted higher prevalence of DSL in areas where moose are of management concern and surveys have shown higher meningeal worm prevalence in WTD heads. Further, we expected to only recover meningeal worm, as muscle worm has only been reported from caribou in more northern areas of Manitoba. We collected WTD feces by transect sampling, used the Baermann technique to obtain larvae, and sequenced partial cytochrome oxidase 1 and internal transcribed spacer 2 genes to confirm species identity. Zero-inflated models revealed that DSL prevalence did not differ temporally but was higher in areas where moose are of management concern. Genetic analyses revealed that meningeal worm and muscle worm were both present in Western Manitoba and co-occurred in three areas. Our results reveal novel insights into the geographic distribution of muscle worm and emphasize the importance of DNA sequencing for DSL identification. We suggest that concern for moose populations is warranted given the increased risk of parasite infection in some management areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".