MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340422043 · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjw057

Molecular Mechanisms of Reception and Perireception in Crustacean Chemoreception: A Comparative Review

2016· review· en· W2340422043 on OpenAlexaff
Charles D. Derby, Mihika T. Kozma, Adriano Senatore, Manfred Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Senses · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Celiac AssociationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChemoreceptorCrustaceanIonotropic effectEvolutionary biologyDaphnia pulexEcologyZoologyReceptorGlutamate receptorBiochemistryDaphnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes our present knowledge of chemoreceptor proteins in crustaceans, using a comparative perspective to review these molecules in crustaceans relative to other metazoan models of chemoreception including mammals, insects, nematodes, and molluscs. Evolution has resulted in unique expansions of specific gene families and repurposing of them for chemosensation in various clades, including crustaceans. A major class of chemoreceptor proteins across crustaceans is the Ionotropic Receptors, which diversified from ionotropic glutamate receptors in ancient protostomes but which are not present in deuterostomes. Representatives of another major class of chemoreceptor proteins-the Grl/GR/OR family of ionotropic 7-transmembrane receptors-are diversified in insects but to date have been reported in only one crustacean species, Daphnia pulex So far, canonic 7-transmembrane G-protein coupled receptors, the principal chemoreceptors in vertebrates and reported in a few protostome clades, have not been identified in crustaceans. More types of chemoreceptors are known throughout the metazoans and might well be expected to be discovered in crustaceans. Our review also provides a comparative coverage of perireceptor events in crustacean chemoreception, including molecules involved in stimulus acquisition, stimulus delivery, and stimulus removal, though much less is known about these events in crustaceans, particularly at the molecular level.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
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

Citations114
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical SensesSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207