Transcriptional response in larvae of the generalist fruit fly <i>Anastrepha obliqua</i> feeding on three different tropical host plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding the molecular mechanisms used by phytophagous insects to survive and feed on new hosts is key to explaining their mechanisms of range expansion and diversification. However, only a few Neotropical biological models have been used to understand these mechanisms. In this study, we investigated the differences in gene expression of the Neotropical phytophagous insect Anastrepha obliqua Macquart (Diptera: Tephritidae), the West Indian Fruit Fly, when feeding on three different host plant species under sympatric and synchronous conditions. Third‐instar larvae of A. obliqua infesting red mombin (Spondias purpurea L.), mango (Mangifera indica L.), and carambola (Averrhoa carambola L.) were collected in two localities in southwestern Colombia. After assembling a de novo transcriptome, differences in gene expression between larvae infesting the three host species were established using a batch effect design, controlling the variability introduced by location. Sixty‐four differentially expressed unigenes were identified among flies infesting the different hosts, with the greatest number of genes differentially expressed between red mombin and carambola. Digestive genes, such as alpha‐amylases and serine proteases, were upregulated in larvae from red mombin compared with mango (six genes) and carambola (four genes), suggesting the response of A. obliqua to the nutritional composition in red mombin. Also, two genes related to immune system responses, glutactin and acidic phospholipase A2, were upregulated in mango compared to carambola. Notably, genes annotated as transposable elements (TEs) were consistently upregulated in larvae infesting carambola and mango compared to larvae infesting red mombin. This may suggest the activation of these TEs in acclimation or adaptation to new hosts. Based on our results, the main categories of differentially expressed genes in A. obliqua were serine proteases, detoxification proteins, and proteins associated with the regulation of gene expression. These results support the potential of A. obliqua to adapt to host plants and its qualification as a generalist species.
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".