MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101735670 · doi:10.1139/g08-047

<i>foxo</i>is required for resistance to amino acid starvation in Drosophila

2008· article· en· W2101735670 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jamie M. Kramer, Jennifer D. Slade, Brian E. Staveley

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyStarvationAmino acidStarvation responseTranscription factorCell biologyGeneDrosophila melanogasterBiochemistryGeneticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of an organism to alter its metabolism, growth, and reproductive capacity in response to fluctuations in food availability has likely been an important factor in the course of evolution. The insulin signalling pathway is an evolutionarily conserved mechanism used by metazoan animals to sense and respond to changes in nutrient intake. During conditions of starvation the level of circulating insulin is low. Under conditions of low insulin, the foxo family of transcription factors are activated. Studies in Drosophila suggest that Drosophila foxo may alter the transcriptional profile of cells to allow for maximum survival of the fly during starvation. We have tested this ability in transgenic flies containing a luciferase reporter gene under the control of foxo response elements. We show that foxo activity is increased during amino acid starvation and reduced in the presence of amino acids. In addition, we find that loss of function of foxo leads to reduced survival under conditions of amino acid starvation in both larvae and adult flies. These data provide direct evidence that foxo is activated during amino acid starvation and is critical for optimal survival under these conditions.

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 score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207