Data from: A proof-of-concept experimental-theoretical model to predict pesticide resistance evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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. The data archived here contains information relevant to the wild isolate chemical susceptibility screen, baseline dose-survival, and fitness data on PD4792, SR42, and JD608 strains, which were further characterised in this study, as well as the data on experimental microevolution of chemical resistance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".