MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026100048 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m104688200

Olfaction in the Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar

2001· article· en· W2026100048 on OpenAlexaff
Angelica Kowcun, Nicolette S. Honson, Erika Plettner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPheromoneLymantria disparSensory systemOlfactionBiologyLigand (biochemistry)BiophysicsEnantiomerBiochemistryChemistryBotanyStereochemistryNeuroscienceReceptorLepidoptera genitalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pheromone-binding proteins (PBPs) are 16-kDa abundant proteins in specialized olfactory hairs in insects. The mechanism by which the PBPs remove the pheromone from the inner surface of sensory hairs and deliver it to the sensory cell remains unclear. Existing qualitative models postulate that pheromone is released near the dendrite by a decrease in pH or by a reduced form of the PBP. This study focuses on the two PBPs from the gypsy moth and the enantiomers of the pheromone cis-2-methyl-7,8-epoxyoctadecane. The pH dependence of pheromone binding has revealed three ionizations that are important. The type of ligand influences two of these ionizations. We propose that the (-)-enantiomer of the pheromone interacts with one of the ionizable residues on the protein while the (+)-enantiomer does not. Simultaneous variation of pH and KCl concentration in the physiological range or reduction of disulfide bridges does not change the affinity of PBP for pheromone. We propose a revised model of pheromone transport from the inner surface of the sensory hair to the sensory neuron.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207