Le recrutement de bactéries par les larves de Aedes aegypti en Guyane française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<br> \nAedes aegypti est un moustique vecteur de plusieurs virus infectant les humains, d'où les efforts consentis pour contrôler les populations de cet insecte. En plus de l’usage d’insecticides, plusieurs solutions de rechange sont étudiées pour lutter contre ces populations, parmi lesquelles une meilleure compréhension du rôle du microbiote. La littérature suggère que la composition spécifique des bactéries retrouvées chez les larves soit étroitement liée aux microorganismes retrouvés dans l’eau de leur gîte larvaire. Cependant, les facteurs influençant la structure des communautés sont peu connus. L’hypothèse émise est que la structure des communautés microbiennes formant le microbiote des larves est influencée par celle que l’on retrouve dans les gîtes larvaires. Un total de 60 gîtes larvaires a été sélectionné en Guyane française pour la collecte de larves et d’eau. Pour chaque gîte, les paramètres physicochimiques ainsi que les caractéristiques environnementales ont été notés. L’ADN total pour chaque échantillon a été extrait, puis les librairies de séquençage ciblant la région codant pour l’ARNr 16S des bactéries (V6-V8) ont été préparées au Québec. Les résultats obtenus permettent d’observer des similarités entre les OTUs identifiés chez les larves et leur environnement, mais dans des proportions différentes. Une analyse canonique permet d’expliquer 4% de la covariation observée chez les larves par les structures microbiennes présentes dans l’eau, alors que l’environnement permet d’expliquer 3% de cette covariation. En somme, les communautés bactériennes retrouvées chez les larves semblent provenir principalement de leur environnement, mais les facteurs et mécanismes qui influencent la structure de ces communautés restent à être déterminés.</br> \n<br> \nAedes aegypti, an important vector of arboviruses, is an anthropophilic mosquito that reproduces in small volumes of water located in urban areas. Due to abusive use of insecticide, it has developed resistance mechanisms. The role of microbiota in such resistance isn’t clear, and bacterial community modulations are considered as a way to control the mosquito proliferation. Many mechanisms may be involved in shaping microbial communities found in the larvae, and the parameters that affect the microbiota’s assembly are not well understood. Our hypothesis suggested that the structure of the larval microbiota comes from the structure of the bacterial communities of the larval sites. In French Guiana, 60 breeding sites were investigated; mosquito larvae were collected, along with breeding site water. Information concerning the site was collected, and physicochemical parameters were noted. Total DNA was extracted, then sequencing libraries targeting the 16S rRNA of bacteria were prepared in Quebec. The results obtained show similarities between the OTUs identified in larvae and their environment, but in different proportions. A canonical analysis explains 4% of the covariation observed in larvae by the microbial structures present in the water, while the environment explains 3% of this covariation. In fact, the bacterial communities found in larvae seem to come mainly from their environment, but the factors and mechanisms that influence the structure of these communities have yet to be determined. </br>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".