touche Is Required for Touch-Evoked Generator Potentials within Vertebrate Sensory Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process by which light touch in vertebrates is transformed into an electrical response in cutaneous mechanosensitive neurons is a largely unresolved question. To address this question we undertook a forward genetic screen in zebrafish (Danio rerio) to identify mutants exhibiting abnormal touch-evoked behaviors, despite the presence of sensory neurons and peripheral neurites. One family, subsequently named touché, was found to harbor a recessive mutation which produced offspring that were unresponsive to light touch, but responded to a variety of other sensory stimuli. The optogenetic activation of motor behaviors by touché mutant sensory neurons expressing channelrhodopsin-2 suggested that the synaptic output of sensory neurons was intact, consistent with a defect in sensory neuron activation. To explore sensory neuron activation we developed an in vivo preparation permitting the precise placement of a combined electrical and tactile stimulating probe upon eGFP-positive peripheral neurites. In wild-type larva electrical and tactile stimulation of peripheral neurites produced action potentials detectable within the cell body. In a subset of these sensory neurons an underlying generator potential could be observed in response to subthreshold tactile stimuli. A closer examination revealed that the amplitude of the generator potential was proportional to the stimulus amplitude. When assayed touché mutant sensory neurons also responded to electrical stimulation of peripheral neurites similar to wild-type larvae, however tactile stimulation of these neurites failed to uncover a subset of sensory neurons possessing generator potentials. These findings suggest that touché is required for generator potentials, and that cutaneous mechanoreceptors with generator potentials are necessary for responsiveness to light touch in zebrafish.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".