MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099536877 · doi:10.1242/jeb.010124

Natural variation in plasticity of glucose homeostasis and food intake

2008· article· en· W2099536877 on OpenAlexaff
Karla R. Kaun, M. Chakaborty‐Chatterjee, Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsHemolymphBiologyAdipokinetic hormoneEndocrinologyInternal medicineHormoneGlucose homeostasisHomeostasisFood intakeFat bodyInsulinLarvaEcologyMedicineInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Balancing the acquisition, allocation and storage of energy during periods of food deprivation is critical for survival. We show that natural variation in the foraging (for) gene, which encodes a cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, affects behavioral and physiological responses to short-term food deprivation. Rover and sitter, natural allelic variants of for, differ in their stored carbohydrate reserves as well as their response to short-term deprivation. Fewer carbohydrates are stored in the fat body of rovers compared with sitters, and more labeled glucose is allocated to lipid stores compared with carbohydrate stores during a short feeding bout. Short-term food deprivation decreases hemolymph glucose levels in rovers but not in sitters. After food deprivation, rovers increase their food intake more slowly than sitters, and rover hemolymph levels take longer to respond to re-feeding. Finally, rovers have lower adipokinetic hormone (akh) mRNA levels than sitters. Our data suggest that for mediates larval responses to short-term food deprivation by altering food intake and blood glucose levels.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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