MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106416114 · doi:10.1242/jeb.023739

Too much of a good thing: how insects cope with excess ions or toxins in the diet

2009· review· en· W2106416114 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalpighian tubule systemRhodnius prolixusExcretory systemTubuleHemolymphBiologyIon channelIon transporterCell biologyReduviidaeBiophysicsTransporterChemistryBiochemistryAnatomyKidneyZoologyInsectEndocrinologyMidgutHemipteraBotanyReceptorMembraneGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of our understanding of the ionoregulatory and excretory physiology of blood-feeding insects can be traced to a series of papers by Simon Maddrell and colleagues in the 1970s and 1980s. These studies of the Malpighian (renal) tubules of Rhodnius prolixus revealed a number of physiological adaptations to the short-term and long-term stresses associated with blood feeding. More recent electrophysiological studies using voltage- and ion-selective microelectrodes have extended our understanding of the mechanisms and control of ion transport by the secretory and reabsorptive segments of the Rhodnius Malpighian tubule. The discovery that the rates of transport of organic anions, urates and Ca(2+) are synchronized to coincide with the appearance of the products of blood meal digestion in the haemolymph of Rhodnius has stimulated parallel studies in Drosophila. This recent research has examined how excretory mechanisms for organic cations and organic anions are altered by exposure to such compounds in the diet. These studies also show that the Drosophila Malpighian tubule provides a useful model for analysis of the roles of transporters such as P-glycoproteins and multidrug resistance-associated proteins in the excretion of toxins.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsFrench-language works237,207