Cell-selective modulation of the<i>Drosophila</i>neuromuscular system by a neuropeptide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropeptides can modulate physiological properties of neurons in a cell-specific manner. The present work examines whether a neuropeptide can also modulate muscle tissue in a cell-specific manner using identified muscle cells in third-instar larvae of fruit flies. DPKQDFMRFa, a modulatory peptide in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, has been shown to enhance transmitter release from motor neurons and to elicit contractions by a direct effect on muscle cells. We report that DPKQDFMRFa causes a nifedipine-sensitive drop in input resistance in some muscle cells (6 and 7) but not others (12 and 13). The peptide also increased the amplitude of nerve-evoked contractions and compound excitatory junctional potentials (EJPs) to a greater degree in muscle cells 6 and 7 than 12 and 13. Knocking down FMRFamide receptor (FR) expression separately in nerve and muscle indicate that both presynaptic and postsynaptic FR expression contributed to the enhanced contractions, but EJP enhancement was mainly due to presynaptic expression. Muscle ablation showed that DPKQDFMRFa induced contractions and enhanced nerve-evoked contractions more strongly in muscle cells 6 and 7 than cells 12 and 13. In situ hybridization indicated that FR expression was significantly greater in muscle cells 6 and 7 than 12 and 13. Taken together, these results indicate that DPKQDFMRFa can elicit cell-selective effects on muscle fibers. The ability of neuropeptides to work in a cell-selective manner on neurons and muscle cells may help explain why so many peptides are encoded in invertebrate and vertebrate genomes.
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".