MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746806929 · doi:10.1038/s41539-017-0011-8

Habituation as an adaptive shift in response strategy mediated by neuropeptides

2017· article· en· W2746806929 on OpenAlexafffund
Evan L. Ardiel, Alex J. Yu, Andrew C. Giles, Catharine H. Rankin

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Science of Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsHabituationOptogeneticsNeuroscienceNoxious stimulusSensitizationStimulationNeuropeptidePsychologyBiologyNociceptionReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Habituation is a non-associative form of learning characterized by a decremented response to repeated stimulation. It is typically framed as a process of selective attention, allowing animals to ignore irrelevant stimuli in order to free up limited cognitive resources. However, habituation can also occur to threatening and toxic stimuli, suggesting that habituation may serve other functions. Here we took advantage of a high-throughput Caenorhabditis elegans learning assay to investigate habituation to noxious stimuli. Using real-time computer vision software for automated behavioral tracking and optogenetics for controlled activation of a polymodal nociceptor, ASH, we found that neuropeptides mediated habituation and performed an RNAi screen to identify candidate receptors. Through subsequent mutant analysis and cell-type-specific gene expression, we found that pigment-dispersing factor (PDF) neuropeptides function redundantly to promote habituation via PDFR-1-mediated cAMP signaling in both neurons and muscles. Behavioral analysis during learning acquisition suggests that response habituation and sensitization of locomotion are parts of a shifting behavioral strategy orchestrated by pigment dispersing factor signaling to promote dispersal away from repeated aversive stimuli.

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Science of LearningSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207