Mechanisms and consequences of infection‐induced phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers studying animal phenotypes often overlook the potential influence of parasites hiding inside their study organisms. Yet, most wild animals host parasites, which can alter individual phenotypes (e.g. morphology, physiology, behaviour). Infection‐induced phenotypes stem from several nonmutually exclusive mechanisms (i.e. adaptive host defences, infection‐induced debilitation and host manipulation by parasites), driven by parasites and/or hosts. Changes in host phenotype can impact all levels of biological organization, from cells to communities. The nature and magnitude of these effects can vary depending on the biotic and abiotic environmental factors experienced by hosts and parasites. This special feature highlights recent insights into the ways parasites alter host phenotypes across a range of systems. Here, we contextualize how each contribution expands our knowledge of the role of parasites in driving individual variation in animal phenotypes. Looking to the future, we need to better understand how infection‐induced phenotypes fluctuate with natural variation in infection (e.g. infection intensity, coinfection) and whether studies in laboratory‐based environments provide strong proxies for host–parasite interactions in the wild. The time is ripe to acknowledge, critique and discuss the implications of infection on host phenotypes across taxonomic boundaries and biological levels of organization. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".