Immune genotypes, immune responses, and survival in a wild bird population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals vary in their immune genotype, inbreeding coefficient f, immune responses, survival to adulthood, and adult longevity. However, whether immune genes predict survival or longevity, whether such relationships are mediated through immune responses, and how f affects immune genotype remain unclear. We use a wild song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) population in which survival to adulthood, adult longevity, and f were measured precisely, and in which immune responses have previously been assessed. We investigate four toll-like receptor (TLR) and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class IIB exon 2 genes. We test whether immune genes predict fitness (survival to adulthood or adult longevity); whether immune genes predict immune response; whether immune response predicts fitness and whether fitness, immune responses, or immune genotypes are correlated with f. We find that survival to adulthood is not associated with immune gene variation, but adult longevity is decreased by high MHC allele diversity (especially in birds that were relatively outbred), and by the presence of a specific MHC supertype. Immune responses were affected by specific immune genotypes. Survival to adulthood and adult longevity were not predicted by immune response, implying caution in the use of immune response as a predictor for fitness. We also found no relationship between f and immune genotype. This finding indicates that immune gene associations with longevity and immune response are not artefacts of f, and suggests that pathogen-mediated selection at functional loci can slow the loss of genetic variation arising from genetic drift and small population size.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".