Experimental evolution of response to anoxia in <i>Drosophila</i>: recovery of locomotion following CO2 or N2 exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many insects enter coma upon exposure to anoxia, a feature routinely exploited by experimentalists to handle them. But the genetic and physiological bases of anoxic coma induction and recovery are only partially understood, as are the long-term consequences for the animal's performance. We examined three populations of Drosophila melanogaster (designated B) that have been inadvertently under selection for rapid recovery from CO2 exposure for nearly 40 years (around 1,000 generations) resulting from routine maintenance practices. We contrasted CO2 and N2 (presumed a less reactive gas) knockdown and recovery times of these B flies with six populations of common ancestry (A and C populations) that were not exposed to CO2 over the same period. We found that B populations showed faster and more consistent locomotor recovery than A or C populations after CO2 knockdown, a result also observed with N2 knockdown. A and C populations showed much higher variance in recovery time after CO2 exposure than after N2 exposure, suggesting gas-specific effects on pathways associated with locomotor recovery. While these selection treatments result in considerable variation in life history attributes and body size, with the characteristic intermediacy of B populations, their superiority in resistance to gas exposure and locomotor recovery suggests that it is a direct consequence of prior repeated exposure to anoxia, broadly, and CO2, specifically. Hence we describe a powerful new evolutionary model for the genetic and physiological investigation of anoxic coma in insects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".