Optogenetic decoding of a long-range brain circuit for neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some long-distance migratory animals, such as salmon and sea turtles, are thought to imprint on the magnetic field of their natal area and use this information to help them return as adults.Despite a growing body of indirect support for such imprinting, direct experimental evidence that an animal can learn and remember the magnetic field in which it develops has not previously been obtained.Here, using the fruit fly as a magnetoreceptive model organism, we demonstrate that exposure to a magnetic field from a particular geographic area, during a critical period of early development, affects the response of flies to the same magnetic field later in life.Specifically, hungry flies that had been imprinted to the magnetic field that exists at one of three widely separated geographic locations responded to the imprinted field, but not to other magnetic fields, by moving downward, a geotactic behavior associated with foraging.In addition, the same behavior occurred spontaneously in the progeny of the next generation; female progeny moved downward in response to the field upon which their parents had imprinted, whereas male progeny did so only when tested in the presence of females.These results represent the first experimental evidence that animals can learn and remember a magnetic field to which they were exposed during a critical period of development.Although the function of the behavior is not known, one possibility is that imprinting on the magnetic field of a natal area assists flies and their offspring in recognizing locations likely to be favorable for foraging and reproduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".