Natural variation in host feeding behaviors impacts host disease and pathogen transmission potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals ranging from mosquitoes to humans often vary their feeding behavior when infected or merely exposed to pathogens. These so-called "sickness behaviors" are part of the innate immune response with many consequences, including avoiding orally transmitted pathogens. Fully understanding the role of this ubiquitous behavior in host defense and pathogen evolution requires a quantitative account of its impact on host and pathogen fitness across environmentally relevant contexts. Here, we use a zooplankton host and fungal pathogen as a case study to ask if infection-mediated feeding behaviors vary across pathogen exposure levels and natural genetic variation in susceptibility to infection. Then, we connect these changes in behavior to pathogen transmission potential (spore yield) and fitness and growth costs to the host. Our results validate a protective effect of altered feeding behavior during pathogen exposure while also revealing significant variation in the magnitude of this response across host susceptibility and pathogen exposure levels. Across all four host genotypes, feeding rates were negatively correlated with susceptibility to infection and transmission potential. The most susceptible genotypes exhibited either strong anorexia, reducing food intake by 26%-42%, ("Standard") or pronounced hyperphagia, increasing food intake by 20%-54% ("A45"). Together, these results suggest that infection-mediated changes in host feeding behavior-which are traditionally interpreted as immunopathology- may in fact serve as crucial components of host defense strategies and warrant further investigation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".