Molecular characterization of sugar taste receptors in the cotton bollworm <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects utilize sugars as their essential energy and nutrient sources; therefore, the sense of sugar detection plays a critical role in insect behaviours. Previously, using genomic and transcriptomic approaches, we identified eight putative sugar gustatory receptor (GR) genes from the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Here, we further validated these annotated sugar receptor genes (HarmGr4-HarmGr8 and HarmGr10-HarmGr12) and found HarmGr10 may be a pseudogene carrying a stop codon in the open reading frame. Sequence alignment revealed H. armigera sugar GR sequences are conserved at C-terminus and phylogenetic analysis showed that insect sugar GRs have evolved in a family-specific manner. Interestingly, all eight H. armigera sugar GRs are localized in a tandem array on the same scaffold of the genome. In silico gene expression and reverse transcription (RT)-PCR analysis showed that HarmGr10 is specifically expressed in male adult testes while HarmGr11 is specifically expressed in female adult ovaries, suggesting H. armigera sugar GRs may be involved in reproduction-related functions. This study improves our knowledge on insect sugar receptors and gustatory systems.
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".