MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412585520 · doi:10.1038/s41437-025-00781-x

A proof-of-concept experimental-theoretical model to predict pesticide resistance evolution

2025· article· en· W4412585520 on OpenAlexaff
L. Li, Liisa Parts, Philip G. Madgwick, Kayla E. King, Anthony J Flemming, Alison Woollard

Bibliographic record

VenueHeredity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institutes of HealthSyngenta InternationalResearch Councils UKMagdalen College, University of OxfordJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsIn silicoBiologyInsecticide resistanceResistance (ecology)Experimental evolutionSelection (genetic algorithm)Generalizability theoryBiochemical engineeringBiotechnologyComputational biologyRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEcologyToxicologyMachine learningGeneticsEngineeringBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insecticide resistance poses a major challenge to sustainable agriculture, yet studying its evolution in laboratory settings is notoriously difficult due to challenges related to maintaining large populations of pest species. While theoretical models offer valuable predictions, an experimental system for validating insecticide resistance management strategies remains lacking. Here, we explore C. elegans as a model organism for studying insecticide resistance evolution. We developed an in silico population genetics model and tested its predictive power in laboratory experiments, comparing the computational predictions to experimental resistance selection dynamics. Two compounds with distinct modes of action were tested to assess the generalizability of this system across different resistance mechanisms. Our results showed that in silico predictions generally resembled multigenerational in vivo resistance selection outcomes, demonstrating the feasibility of integrating in vivo and in silico modelling approaches in resistance research. By bridging the gap between theoretical and empirical research, this framework paves the way for addressing a wide range of open questions in resistance management, permitting the development of better informed and more effective resistance management strategies for the agricultural industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207