Effect of pulse direct current signals on electrotactic movement of nematodes <i>Caenorhabditis elegans <i>and</i> Caenorhabditis briggsae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nematodes (worms) Caenorhabditiselegans and Caenorhabditisbriggsae are well-known model organisms to study the basis of animal development and behaviour. Their sinusoidal pattern of movement is highly stereotypic and serves as a tool to monitor defects in neurons and muscles that control movement. Until recently, a simple yet robust method to initiate movement response on-demand did not exist. We have found that the electrical stimulation in a microfluidic channel, using constant DC electric field, induces movement (termed electrotaxis) that is instantaneous, precise, sensitive, and fully penetrant. We have further characterized this behaviour and, in this paper, demonstrate that electrotaxis can also be induced using a pulse DC electric signal. Worms responded to pulse DC signals with as low as 30% duty cycle by moving towards the negative electrode at the same speed as constant DC fields (average speed of C. elegans = 296 ± 43 μm/s and C. briggsae = 356 ± 20 μm/s, for both constant and pulse DC electric fields with various frequencies). C. briggsae was found to be more sensitive to electric signals compared to C. elegans. We also investigated the turning response of worms to a change in the direction of constant and pulse DC signals. The response for constant DC signal was found to be instantaneous and similar for most worms. However, in the case of pulse DC signal, alterations in duty cycle affected the turning response time as well as the number of responding worms. Our findings show that pulse DC method allows quantitative measurement of response behaviour of worms and suggest that it could be used as a tool to study the neuronal basis of such a behaviour that is not observed under constant DC conditions.
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".