The Composition of Midgut Bacteria in Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) That Are Naturally Susceptible or Refractory to Dengue Viruses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composition, abundance, and diversity of midgut bacteria in mosquitoes can influence pathogen transmission. We used 16S rRNA microbiome profiling to survey midgut microbial diversity in pooled samples of laboratory colonized dengue-refractory, Cali-MIB, and dengue-susceptible, Cali-S Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus). The 16S rRNA sequences from the sugar-fed midguts of adult females clustered to 63 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), primarily from Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Flavobacteria, and Actinobacteria. An average of five ASVs dominated the midguts, and most ASVs were present in both Cali-MIB and Cali-S midguts. No differences in abundance were noted at any phylogenetic level (Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus) by analysis of composition of microbiome (w = 0). No community diversity metrics were significantly different between refractory and susceptible mosquitoes. These data suggest that phenotypic differences in the susceptibility to dengue virus between Cali-MIB and Cali-S are not likely due to major differences in midgut bacterial communities.
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".