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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations114
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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