MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2526297350 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163976

Pulsed Light Stimulation Increases Boundary Preference and Periodicity of Episodic Motor Activity in Drosophila melanogaster

2016· article· en· W2526297350 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuang Qiu, Chengfeng Xiao, R. Meldrum Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulationDrosophila melanogasterNeuroscienceSensory systemBiologySensory stimulation therapyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable interest in the therapeutic benefits of long-term sensory stimulation for improving cognitive abilities and motor performance of stroke patients. The rationale is that such stimulation would activate mechanisms of neural plasticity to promote enhanced coordination and associated circuit functions. Experimental approaches to characterize such mechanisms are needed. Drosophila melanogaster is one of the most attractive model organisms to investigate neural mechanisms responsible for stimulation-induced behaviors with its powerful accessibility to genetic analysis. In this study, the effect of chronic sensory stimulation (pulsed light stimulation) on motor activity in w1118 flies was investigated. Flies were exposed to a chronic pulsed light stimulation protocol prior to testing their performance in a standard locomotion assay. Flies responded to pulsed light stimulation with increased boundary preference and travel distance in a circular arena. In addition, pulsed light stimulation increased the power of extracellular electrical activity, leading to the enhancement of periodic electrical activity which was associated with a centrally-generated motor pattern (struggling behavior). In contrast, such periodic events were largely missing in w1118 flies without pulsed light treatment. These data suggest that the sensory stimulation induced a response in motor activity associated with the modifications of electrical activity in the central nervous system (CNS). Finally, without pulsed light treatment, the wild-type genetic background was associated with the occurrence of the periodic activity in wild-type Canton S (CS) flies, and w+ modulated the consistency of periodicity. We conclude that pulsed light stimulation modifies behavioral and electrophysiological activities in w1118 flies. These data provide a foundation for future research on the genetic mechanisms of neural plasticity underlying such behavioral modification.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→French-language works237,207→