Contrary Effects of Octopamine Receptor Ligands on Behavioral and Neuronal Changes in Locomotion of <i>Lymnaea</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis moves along the sides and bottom of an aquarium, but it can also glide upside down on its back below the water's surface. We have termed these two forms of locomotion "standard locomotion" and "upside-down gliding," respectively. Previous studies showed that standard locomotion is produced by both cilia activity on the foot and peristaltic contraction of the foot muscles, whereas upside-down gliding is mainly caused by cilia activity. The pedal A neurons are thought to receive excitatory octopaminergic input, which ultimately results in increased cilia beating. However, the relationship between locomotory speed and the responses of these neurons to octopamine is not known. We thus examined the effects of both an agonist and an antagonist of octopamine receptors on locomotory speed and the firing rate of the pedal A neurons. We also examined, at the electron and light-microscopic levels, whether structural changes occur in cilia following the application of either an agonist or an antagonist of octopamine receptors to the central nervous system (CNS). We found that the application of an octopamine antagonist to the CNS increased the speed of both forms of locomotion, whereas application of octopamine increased only the firing rate of the pedal A neurons. Microscopic examination of the cilia proved that there were no changes in their morphology after application of octopamine ligands. These data suggest that there is an unidentified octopaminergic neuronal network in the CNS whose activation reduces cilia movement and thus locomotory speed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it