MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Signaling Proteins that Regulate NaCL Chemotaxis Responses Modulate Longevity in <i>C. elegans</i>

2009· article· en· W2000599853 on OpenAlexaff
Hannes Lans, Martijn P. J. Dekkers, Renate K. Hukema, Nathan J. Bialas, Michel R. Leroux, Gert Jansen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemCaenorhabditis elegansBiologyChemotaxisSignal transductionCell biologyProtein subunitSensory neuronFunction (biology)NeuroscienceReceptorGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lifespan of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is regulated by sensory signals detected by the amphid neurons. In these neurons, C. elegans expresses at least 14 Galpha subunits and a Ggamma subunit. We have identified seven sensory Galpha subunits that modulate lifespan. Genetic experiments suggest that multiple sensory signaling pathways exist that modulate lifespan and that some G proteins function in multiple pathways, most of which, but probably not all, involve insulin/IGF-1 like signaling. Interestingly, of the sensory G proteins involved in regulating lifespan, only one Galpha probably functions directly in the detection of sensory cues. The other G proteins seem to function in modulating the sensitivity of the sensory neurons. We hypothesize that in addition to the mere detection of sensory cues, regulation of the sensitivity of sensory neurons also plays a role in the regulation of lifespan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→