MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008154058 · doi:10.1017/s0016672310000194

Quantitative trait locus mapping of gravitaxis behaviour in<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>

2010· article· en· W2008154058 on OpenAlexafffund
CHRISTIE E. DESROCHES, Macarena Busto, Craig A.L. Riedl, Trudy F. C. Mackay, Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAmgen (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Space AgencyNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDrosophila melanogasterBiologyQuantitative trait locusGeneticsLocus (genetics)GeneMelanogasterComplementationEvolutionary biologyPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drosophila melanogaster, like other organisms, move and orient themselves in response to the earth's gravitational force. The ability to sense and respond to gravity is essential for an organism to navigate and thrive in its environment. The genes underlying this behaviour in Drosophila remain elusive. Using 88 recombinant inbred lines, we have identified four quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that contribute to adult gravitaxis (geotaxis) behaviour in Drosophila. Candidate genes of interest were selected from the QTLs of highest significance based on their function in chordotonal organ formation. Quantitative complementation tests with these candidate genes revealed a role for skittles in adult gravitaxis behaviour in D. melanogaster.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics ResearchSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207