Model worms: knowledge gains and risks associated with the use of model species in parasitological research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Model parasite species, whose entire life cycle can be completed in the laboratory and maintained for multiple generations, have played a fundamental role in our understanding of host–parasite interactions. Yet, keeping parasites in laboratory conditions may expose them to unnatural evolutionary pressures, and using laboratory cultures for research is therefore not without limitations. Using 2 widely-used model helminth species, the cestode Hymenolepis diminuta and the nematode Heligmosomoides polygyrus , I illustrate the caution needed when interpreting experimental results on model species. I first review more than 1200 experimental studies published on these species in the past 4 decades, to determine which research areas they have contributed to. This is followed by an examination of the institutional laboratory cultures that have provided the parasites used in these studies. Some of these have persisted for decades and accounted for a substantial proportion of published studies, whereas others have been short-lived. Using information provided by the curators of active cultures, I summarize data on their origins and maintenance conditions. Finally, I discuss how laboratory cultures may have been subject to the influence of evolutionary genetic processes, such as founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding. I also address the possibility that serial passage through laboratory hosts across multiple generations has exerted artificial selection on several parasite traits, resulting in genetic and phenotypic divergence among laboratory cultures, and between these cultures and natural parasite populations. I conclude with recommendations for the continued usage of laboratory helminth cultures aimed at maximizing their important contribution to parasitological research.
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 | 0.127 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".