MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153596745 · doi:10.1037/a0024370

Tap withdrawal circuit interneurons require CREB for long-term habituation in Caenorhabditis elegans.

2011· article· en· W2153596745 on OpenAlexafffund
Tiffany Timbers, Catharine H. Rankin

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsHabituationNeuroscienceCaenorhabditis elegansCREBPsychologyLocus coeruleusBiologyCentral nervous systemGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the role of the Caenorhabditis elegans CREB (cAMP response element binding protein) homologue, crh-1, in response to tap (nonlocalized mechanosensory stimulation) and tap habituation. Worms with a loss-of-function mutation in crh-1 performed smaller reversals in response to tap than did wild-type worms and did not show long-term memory for spaced training 24-hr posttraining; however, they did show short-term habituation to tap stimuli when stimuli were presented at both 10-s and 60-s interstimulus intervals, and showed 12-hr intermediate memory for spaced habituation training (intermediate-term memory). Expressing CRH-1 broadly throughout the nervous system and in a subset of interneurons of the tap withdrawal circuit, but not in the mechanosensory neurons, rescued the long-term memory defects observed in crh-1 mutants. Here we show for the first time that CREB is required for long-term habituation and show that the interneurons of the tap withdrawal response circuit are the locus of plasticity for long-term mechanosensory habituation in C. elegans.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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