MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3129518722 · doi:10.1242/jeb.235143

Mole-rats play evolution by ear

2021· article· en· W3129518722 sur OpenAlexaff
Brittney G. Borowiec

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Établissements canadiensWilfrid Laurier University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMoleCochleaAudiologyInner earBiologyAnatomyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Scuttling around their burrows, mole-rats can kick up a bit of a racket, calling out in the dark to their extensive family. Surprisingly, naked mole-rats and their close relatives Damaraland mole-rats have terrible hearing, especially compared with other rodents. Mole-rats have no outer ears and the vibration-sensing hair cells in their inner ear are weirdly connected to their nerves, but neither feature totally explains why they are nearly deaf. Why they evolved bad hearing is a mystery too. They might have lost hearing over time like other subterranean animals lost sight. Alternatively, poor hearing could be an advantage, dampening echoes in noisy burrows. Sonja Pyott from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, and colleagues investigated the physiological and evolutionary causes of mole-rats’ poor hearing.First, the authors did a mole-rat hearing test to see what sounds got their inner ear – the cochlea – talking to their brain and found that naked and Damaraland mole-rat ears respond to tones between 0.5 and 4 kHz or 2 kHz, respectively, a narrower and lower range than for other rodents. Next, the authors did a full auditory system workup, seeking a physiological mechanism to explain why mole-rats are hard of hearing. As hair cells vibrate in response to incoming sounds, they make noises called otoacoustic emissions. Typically, otoacoustic emissions increase with louder noises and they track how well the cochlea amplifies sounds. Yet, unlike all mammals studied to date, mole-rat otoacoustic emissions were similar across the range of sounds tested (∼70 dB, comparable to an alarm clock), meaning their cochleas didn't make quiet sounds louder.The researchers wondered why mole-rat inner ears didn't amplify sounds, focusing on the outer hair cells that convert soundwaves into brainwaves. As mutations in the hair cell protein prestin, which helps hair cells vibrate, cause hearing loss in humans, the team hypothesized that mole-rat prestin might be dysfunctional. But, when they checked, the mole-rats didn't have any problems with their prestin; they had the right amount in the right places and none of the usual mutations previously associated with hearing loss. Moreover, when they isolated hair cells from mole-rats, the sensors sent electrical signals just as well mouse hair cells, meaning that the lack of cochlear amplification in mole-rats wasn't caused by loss or dysfunction of prestin.Undeterred, the team turned their attention to stereocilia bundles, the ‘tufts’ attached to the hair cells that sway in response to sound. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that mole-rat stereocilia are a mess, jutting out at sharp angles and even missing in some places – a situation that probably makes they them less sensitive to sounds. The disorganization seemed to be caused by several mutations in the linker proteins that connect the tips of individual stereocilia like wires, causing all of the stereocilia to sway in unison, co-ordinating their auditory signals.Confident they had identified one mechanism for poor mole-rat hearing, the team tackled the ultimate question: why? Comparing mole-rat linker proteins with those of other rodents, they found far more amino acid sequence-altering mutations than expected in the mole-rat proteins; the probability of accumulating all those mutations randomly was infinitesimal, making it unlikely they had occurred by chance. The authors concluded that several of the linker protein mutations, and the poor hearing they caused, are likely advantageous for mole-rats.As you'd expect a noisy, sociable, subterranean rodent to have excellent hearing, hard of hearing mole-rats have long been a mystery. But now part of that mystery has been resolved and a key piece of the puzzle is a few mutations in proteins that connect a small, but mighty, part of their ears.

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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetBat Biology and Ecology Studies→Travaux en français237 207→