A male-killing Spiroplasma endosymbiont has age-mediated impacts on Drosophila endurance and sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Spiroplasma poulsonii MSRO reduced nighttime sleep among infected flies at but not older ages. • S. poulsonni MSRO infected flies had larger decreases in physical endurance with age. • S. poulsonni MSRO infected flies were less active when undisturbed. • Endosymbiont-mediated changes in endurance were unlikely to be caused by changes in sleep. Endosymbiotic bacteria have a wide range of impacts on host physiology, behavior, metabolism, endurance, and mobility. Recent work found some endosymbionts also impact host sleep duration and quality. These effects may increase as flies age and endosymbiont titers increase. We tested the hypothesis that Spiroplasma poulsonni MSRO negatively impacts sleep in Drosophila melanogaster, and this in turn impairs fly endurance. In geotaxis climbing assays (a proxy for endurance), we found that MSRO impacted climbing endurance but in an age-dependent manner. Among younger flies, MSRO+ flies slept significantly less during dark periods (measured by a Drosophila Activity Monitoring System) compared to uninfected flies, but older MSRO+ flies did not show significant differences in amount of sleep compared to uninfected flies in the same cohort. While MSRO status impacted both sleep and endurance of hosts, endosymbiont-mediated sleep deprivation did not directly explain decreases in fly endurance. We discuss these results in the context of endosymbiont comparative biology.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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, 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".