Data from: Transcriptional responses in a Drosophila defensive symbiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inherited symbionts are ubiquitous in insects and can have important consequences for the fitness of their hosts. Many inherited symbionts defend their hosts against parasites or other natural enemies; however, the means by which most symbionts confer protection is virtually unknown. We examine the mechanisms of defence in a recently discovered case of symbiont-mediated protection, where the bacterial symbiont Spiroplasma defends the fly Drosophila neotestacea from a virulent nematode parasite, Howardula aoronymphium. Using quantitative PCR of Spiroplasma infection intensities and whole transcriptome sequencing, we attempt to distinguish between the following modes of defence: symbiont–parasite competition, host immune priming and the production of toxic factors by Spiroplasma. Our findings do not support a model of exploitative competition between Howardula and Spiroplasma to mediate defence, nor do we find strong support for host immune priming during Spiroplasma infection. Interestingly, we recovered sequence for putative toxins encoded by Spiroplasma, including a novel putative ribosome-inactivating protein, transcripts of which are up-regulated in response to nematode exposure. Protection via the production of toxins may be a widely used and important mechanism in heritable defensive symbioses in insects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.022 |
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".