Action of octopamine and tyramine on muscles of<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Octopamine (OA) and tyramine (TA) play important roles in homeostatic mechanisms, behavior, and modulation of neuromuscular junctions in arthropods. However, direct actions of these amines on muscle force production that are distinct from effects at the neuromuscular synapse have not been well studied. We utilize the technical benefits of the Drosophila larval preparation to distinguish the effects of OA and TA on the neuromuscular synapse from their effects on contractility of muscle cells. In contrast to the slight and often insignificant effects of TA, the action of OA was profound across all metrics assessed. We demonstrate that exogenous OA application decreases the input resistance of larval muscle fibers, increases the amplitude of excitatory junction potentials (EJPs), augments contraction force and duration, and at higher concentrations (10(-5) and 10(-4) M) affects muscle cells 12 and 13 more than muscle cells 6 and 7. Similarly, OA increases the force of synaptically driven contractions in a cell-specific manner. Moreover, such augmentation of contractile force persisted during direct muscle depolarization concurrent with synaptic block. OA elicited an even more profound effect on basal tonus. Application of 10(-5) M OA increased synaptically driven contractions by ≈ 1.1 mN but gave rise to a 28-mN increase in basal tonus in the absence of synaptic activation. Augmentation of basal tonus exceeded any physiological stimulation paradigm and can potentially be explained by changes in intramuscular protein mechanics. Thus we provide evidence for independent but complementary effects of OA on chemical synapses and muscle contractility.
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".