Expression of Cys‐loop receptor subunits and acetylcholine binding protein in the mechanosensory neurons, glial cells, and muscle tissue of the spider<i>Cupiennius salei</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The central and peripheral nervous system transcriptomes of the spiderCupiennius saleihave 15 Cys‐loop receptor subunits and an acetylcholine‐binding protein (AChBP). Twelve subunits are predicted to form anion channels gated by γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA), glutamate, histamine, or changes in pH, and three are putative ACh‐gated cation channels. Spiders have a variety of mechanosensilla and proprioceptive organs that are innervated by efferents in their peripherally located parts, and efferents also innervate muscle fibers. We investigated Cys‐loop gene expression in muscle tissue by qPCR and localized this expression in mechanosensilla via in situ hybridization. The cuticular mechanosensory neurons had onlyCsGABArdlandCspHCl2subunits, whereas the muscle tissue expressed a wider variety of subunits, especiallyCsGABAgrd, CsGABAAβ, CsGluCl1andCspHCl, but very low levels of theCsGABArdlorCsnAChsubunits. An nACh non‐α subunit was expressed in a group of unidentified cells in the hypodermis and at low level in the muscle tissue, but the physiological function of this subunit is unknown. TheCsnAChαsubunit was not expressed in sensory neurons and was expressed at extremely low level in the muscle tissue. None of the probes gave signals in proprioceptive joint receptors, suggesting that efferent innervation to this sense organ employs other receptor types.CsAChBPand a glia‐specific homeodomainCsREPOwere both expressed in glial cells that surround sensory neurons and also in muscle tissue, probably around the nerve endings of the neuromuscular junction. These locations have large numbers of synapses, suggesting that AChBP may have a function in modulating synaptic transmission. J. Comp. Neurol. 525:1139–1154, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".