Crab stomach pyloric muscles display not only excitatory but inhibitory and neuromodulatory nerve terminals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Movements of the foregut in crustaceans are produced by striated muscles that are innervated by motor neurons in the stomatogastric ganglion (STG). Firing of the STG motor neurons generates excitatory junctional potentials (EJPs) in the stomach muscles. We now provide evidence for the existence of separate inhibitory and neuromodulatory innervations of some pyloric muscles in the foregut of several crabs, Callinectes sapidus, Cancer magister, and Cancer borealis. Electron microscopic examination of several pyloric muscles revealed three distinct types of nerve terminals. Excitatory terminals were readily identified by the spherical shape of their small, clear synaptic vesicles. These terminals also housed a few large dense core vesicles. Inhibitory nerve terminals were recognized by the elliptical shape of their small, clear synaptic vesicles, and contacted the muscles at well-defined synapses equipped with dense bar active zones. Bath application of GABA reduced the amplitudes of EJPs in a pyloric muscle of C. borealis, consistent with the presence of GABAergic inhibitory innervation. Neuromodulatory terminals were characterized by their predominant population of large dense and dense core vesicles. These terminals formed synapses with presynaptic dense bars on the muscle, as well as on the excitatory and inhibitory nerve terminals. The presence of the inhibitory and neuromodulatory terminals creates a functional context for previously described reports of neuromodulatory actions on stomach muscles and suggests that the transfer function from STG motor patterns to pyloric movement may be orchestrated by a complex innervation from sources outside of the STG itself.
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) | 0.000 | 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".