Spider Peripheral Mechanosensory Neurons Are Directly Innervated and Modulated by Octopaminergic Efferents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Octopamine is a chemical relative of noradrenaline providing analogous neurohumoral control of diverse invertebrate physiological processes. There is also evidence for direct octopaminergic innervation of some insect peripheral tissues. Here, we show that spider peripheral mechanoreceptors are innervated by octopamine-containing efferents. The mechanosensory neurons have octopamine receptors colocalized with synapsin labeling in the efferent fibers. In addition, octopamine enhances the electrical response of the sensory neurons to mechanical stimulation. Spider peripheral mechanosensilla receive extensive efferent innervation. Many efferent fibers in the legs of Cupiennius salei are GABAergic, providing inhibitory control of sensory neurons, but there is also evidence for other neurotransmitters. We used antibody labeling to show that some efferents contain octopamine and that octopamine receptors are concentrated on the axon hillocks and proximal soma regions of all mechanosensory neurons in the spider leg. Synaptic vesicles in efferent neurons were concentrated in similar areas. Octopamine, or its precursor tyramine, increased responses of mechanically stimulated filiform (trichobothria) leg hairs. This effect was blocked by the octopamine antagonist phentolamine. The octopamine-induced modulation was mimicked by 8-Br-cAMP, a cAMP analog, and blocked by Rp-cAMPS, a protein kinase A inhibitor, indicating that spider octopamine receptors activate adenylate cyclase and increase cAMP concentration. Frequency response analysis showed that octopamine increased the sensitivity of the trichobothria neurons over a broad frequency range. Thus, the major effect of octopamine is to increase its overall sensitivity to wind-borne signals from sources such as flying insect prey or predators.
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".