Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28874758›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Sex-Specific Routes To Immune Senescence In Drosophila melanogaster.

Marco Kubiak, Matthew C Tinsley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Age-Dependent Immune Defense AgainstJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lysine-36 ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco KubiakBiological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom. marco.kubiak@stir.ac.uk.
Matthew C TinsleyBiological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom.
University of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal immune systems change dramatically during the ageing process, often accompanied by major increases in pathogen susceptibility. However, the extent to which senescent elevations in infection mortality are causally driven by deteriorations in canonical systemic immune processes is unclear. We studied Drosophila melanogaster and compared the relative contributions of impaired systemic immune defences and deteriorating barrier defences to increased pathogen susceptibility in aged flies. To assess senescent changes in systemic immune response efficacy we injected one and four-week old flies with the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana and studied subsequent mortality; whereas to include the role of barrier defences we infected flies by dusting the cuticle with fungal spores. We show that the processes underlying pathogen defence senescence differ between males and females. Both sexes became more susceptible to infection as they aged. However, we conclude that for males, this was principally due to deterioration in barrier defences, whereas for females systemic immune defence senescence was mainly responsible. We discuss the potential roles of sex-specific selection on the immune system and behavioural variation between males and females in driving these different senescent trends.

Indexed as

ImmunityAgingAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterFemaleHost-Pathogen InteractionsImmune SystemMaleSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID28874758
PMCPMC5585412
OpenAlexW2752954623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.