Peripheral synaptic contacts at mechanoreceptors in arachnids and crustaceans: Morphological and immunocytochemical characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of sensory organs in crustaceans and arachnids, the various mechanoreceptors of spiders and the crustacean muscle receptor organs (MRO), receive extensive efferent synaptic innervation in the periphery. Although the two sensory systems are quite different-the MRO is a muscle stretch receptor while most spider mechanoreceptors are cuticular sensilla-this innervation exhibits marked similarities. Detailed ultrastructural investigations of the synaptic contacts along the mechanosensitive neurons of a spider slit sense organ reveal four important features, all having remarkable resemblances to the synaptic innervation at the MRO: (1) The mechanosensory neurons are accompanied by several fine fibers of central origin, which are presynaptic upon the mechanoreceptors. Efferent control of sensory function has only recently been confirmed electrophysiologically for the peripheral innervation of spider slit sensilla. (2) Different microcircuit configuration types, identified on the basis of the structural organization of their synapses. (3) Synaptic contacts, not only upon the sensory neurons but also between the efferent fibers themselves. (4) Two identified neurotransmitter candidates, GABA and glutamate. Physiological evidence for GABAergic and glutamatergic transmission is incomplete at spider sensilla. Given that the sensory neurons are quite different in their location and origin, these parallels are most likely convergent. Although their significance is only partially understood, mostly from work on the MRO, the close similarities seem to reflect functional constraints on the organization of efferent pathways in the brain and in the periphery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".