MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094976193 · doi:10.1673/031.009.5701

Physiological Activity of Neuropeptide F on the Hindgut of the Blood-Feeding Hemipteran,<i>Rhodnius prolixus</i>

2009· article· en· W2094976193 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Gonzalez, Ian Orchard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhodnius prolixusHindgutBiologyMidgutReduviidaeRhodniusDrosophila melanogasterNeuropeptideCell biologyBlood mealAedes aegyptiInvertebrateZoologyInsectAnatomyLarvaEcologyBiochemistryHemipteraReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current hypotheses propose that, in the invertebrates, neuropeptide F (NPF), the vertebrate NPY homologue, may be capable of regulating responses to diverse cues related to nutritional status and feeding. An investigation into the effects of Drosophila melanogaster NPF (DrmNPF) and Anopheles gambiae NPF (AngNPF) on hindgut physiology of Rhodnius prolixus Stal (Heimptera: Reduviidae) suggests a myoinhibitory role for these peptides and the R. prolixus native peptide. Extracts of the central nervous system of R. prolixus were processed and several HPLC-fractions revealed NPF-like activity within the nanomolar equivalent range when tested using the hindgut contraction assay. Although NPF has been shown to decrease epithelial membrane potential in Aedes aegypti larval midgut preparations, NPF does not appear to play a role in epithelial transport of potassium in the hindgut. While the function of NPF has yet to be established, NPF-like effects suggest multiple physiological roles for NPF among invertebrates.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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