MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082114141 · doi:10.1242/jeb.080036

CHOCOLATE MAKES SNAILS SMARTER

2012· article· en· W2082114141 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCognitive psychologyPsychologyChemistryEcologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Type the word ‘superfood,’ into a web browser and you'll be overwhelmed: some websites even maintain that dark chocolate can have beneficial effects. But take a closer look at the science underpinning these claims, and you'll discover just how sparse it is. So, when University of Calgary undergraduate Lee Fruson became curious about how dietary factors might affect memory, Ken Lukowiak was sceptical. ‘I didn't think any of this stuff would work’, Lukowiak recalls. Despite his misgivings, Lukowiak and Fruson decided to concentrate on a group of compounds – the flavinoids – found in a wide range of ‘superfoods’ including chocolate and green tea, focusing on one particular flavonoid, (-)epicatechin (epi). However, figuring out how a single component of chocolate might improve human memory is almost impossible – too many external factors influence memory formation – so Lukowiak turned to his favourite animal, the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis, to find out whether the dark chocolate flavonoid could improve their memories (p. 3566).Lukowiak explains that the molluscs can be trained to remember a simple activity: to keep their breathing tubes (pneumostomes) closed when immersed in deoxygenated water. He explains that pond snails usually breathe through their skins, but when oxygen levels fall, they extend the breathing tube above the surface to supplement the oxygen supply. However, the snails can be trained to remember to keep the breathing tube closed in deoxygenated water by gently tapping it when they try to open it, and the strength of the memory depends on the training regime.First, Fruson identified an epi concentration – 15 mg ml−1 pond water – that didn't affect the snails' behaviour; ‘We have to be sure that we're not looking at wired animals’, chuckles Lukowiak. Then, the duo tested the molluscs' memories. Explaining that a half-hour training session in deoxygenated water allows the snails to form intermediate-term memories (lasting less than 3 h) but not long-term memories (lasting 24 h or more), Fruson and Lukowiak wondered whether epi would improve the snail's memories, allowing them to form long-term memories after shorter memory training. Amazingly, when Fruson plunged the molluscs into deoxygenated water to test their memories a day later, they remembered to keep their breathing tubes closed. And when the duo provided the snails with two training sessions, the animals were able to remember to keep their breathing tubes shut more than 3 days later. Epi had boosted the molluscs' memories and extended the duration, but how strong were the epi-memories?According to Lukowiak, memories can be overwritten by another memory in a process called extinction. However, the original memory is not forgotten and if the additional memory is stored weakly, it can be lost and the original memory restored. So, Fruson and Lukowiak decided to find out how strong the epi-boosted memory was by trying to extinguish it. Having trained the snails, the duo then tried to replace it with a memory where the snails could open their breathing tubes. However, instead of learning the new memory, the epi-trained snails stubbornly kept their breathing tubes shut. The epi-memory was too strong to be extinguished.The duo also found that instead of requiring a sensory organ to consolidate the snails' memories – like their memories of predators triggered by smell – epi directly affects the neurons that store the memory. So, Lukowiak is keen to look directly at the effect that epi has on memory neurons and adds that the cognitive effects of half a bar of dark chocolate could even help your grades: good news for chocoholics the world over.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,065

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,109
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,260 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetMemory and Neural Mechanisms→Travaux en français237 207→