Timing of Locomotor Recovery from Anoxia Modulated by the <i>white</i> Gene in <i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotor recovery from anoxia follows the restoration of disordered ion distributions and neuronal excitability. The time taken for locomotor recovery after 30 sec anoxia (around 10 min) is longer than the time for the propagation of action potentials to be restored (<1 min) in Drosophila wild type. We report here that the white (w) gene modulates the timing of locomotor recovery. Wild-type flies displayed fast and consistent recovery of locomotion from anoxia, whereas mutants of w showed significantly delayed and more variable recovery. Genetic analysis including serial backcrossing revealed a strong association between the w locus and the timing of locomotor recovery, and haplo-insufficient function of w(+) in promoting fast recovery. The locomotor recovery phenotype was independent of classic eye pigmentation, although both are associated with the w gene. Introducing up to four copies of mini-white (mw(+)) into w1118 was insufficient to promote fast and consistent locomotor recovery. However, flies carrying w(+) duplicated to the Y chromosome showed wild-type-like fast locomotor recovery. Furthermore, Knockdown of w by RNA interference (RNAi) in neurons but not glia delayed locomotor recovery, and specifically, knockdown of w in subsets of serotonin neurons was sufficient to delay the locomotor recovery. These data reveal an additional role for w in modulating the timing of locomotor recovery from anoxia.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".