MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980799111 · doi:10.1534/g3.119.400782

Expression of Heat Shock Protein 70 Is Insufficient To Extend <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> Longevity

2019· article· en· W2980799111 on OpenAlexafffund
Chengfeng Xiao, Danna Hull, Shuang Qiu, Joanna Yeung, Jie Zheng, Taylor Barwell, R. Meldrum Robertson, Laurent Seroude

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research InstituteKingston General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLongevityDrosophila melanogasterHeat shock proteinMelanogasterBiologyProtein expressionShock (circulatory)Cell biologyGeneticsMedicineInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been known for over 20 years that Drosophila melanogaster flies with twelve additional copies of the hsp70 gene encoding the 70 kD heat shock protein lives longer after a non-lethal heat treatment. Since the heat treatment also induces the expression of additional heat shock proteins, the biological effect can be due either to HSP70 acting alone or in combination. This study used the UAS/GAL4 system to determine whether hsp70 is sufficient to affect the longevity and the resistance to thermal, oxidative or desiccation stresses of the whole organism. We observed that HSP70 expression in the nervous system or muscles has no effect on longevity or stress resistance but ubiquitous expression reduces the life span of males. We also observed that the down-regulation of hsp70 using RNAi did not affect longevity.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207