Insect gut-dwelling fungus Zancudomyces culisetae: A hidden player in mosquito development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mosquitoes and their gut-dwelling fungi have been documented worldwide, yet their relationships remain poorly understood. Harpellales fungi (Kickxellomycotina, Zoopagomycota) have traditionally been considered commensals, but recent studies suggest they may exhibit parasitic or mutualistic characteristics under certain conditions. In this study, we explored these interactions using two well-established laboratory models: Aedes aegypti and Zancudomyces culisetae. Specifically, we investigated the impact of the gut-dwelling fungus Z. culisetae on A. aegypti larval development by measuring body size and development time under different nutritional conditions, with or without the fungus in the hindgut. Significant differences in body size and development time were observed during larval development in the presence of the gut fungus compared to the control group. Larvae colonized by the fungus exhibited larger body sizes and accelerated development. These effects were consistent under both nutrient-rich and nutrient-deficient conditions, underscoring the symbiotic roles of the gut-dwelling fungus. Interestingly, our results also revealed that even dead fungal spores enhanced mosquito larval development, suggesting previously unrecognized beneficial mechanisms associated with the fungal tissue. Transmission electron microscopy provided additional evidence of mosquito-fungus interactions, showing electron-dense particles within mosquito cells at sites of close contact with fungal cells, although further investigation is required to confirm their identity. Collectively, our findings challenge the traditional view of insect relationships with gut-dwelling fungi, providing evidence for a potential shift from commensalism to mutualism.
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".