MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014603462 · doi:10.1038/s42003-020-0889-1

Trehalose metabolism confers developmental robustness and stability in Drosophila by regulating glucose homeostasis

2020· article· en· W3014603462 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ryota Matsushita, Takashi Nishimura

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics ResearchInstitute of GeneticsRIKENJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsGlucose homeostasisHomeostasisBiologyTrehaloseCarbohydrate metabolismMetabolismMutantCell biologyRobustness (evolution)Mushroom bodiesDrosophila melanogasterBiochemistryInsulinEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisms have evolved molecular mechanisms to ensure consistent and invariant phenotypes in the face of environmental fluctuations. Developmental homeostasis is determined by two factors: robustness, which buffers against environmental variations; and developmental stability, which buffers against intrinsic random variations. However, our understanding of these noise-buffering mechanisms remains incomplete. Here, we showed that appropriate glycemic control confers developmental homeostasis in the fruit fly Drosophila. We found that circulating glucose levels are buffered by trehalose metabolism, which acts as a glucose sink in circulation. Furthermore, mutations in trehalose synthesis enzyme (Tps1) increased the among-individual and within-individual variations in wing size. Whereas wild-type flies were largely resistant to changes in dietary carbohydrate and protein levels, Tps1 mutants experienced significant disruptions in developmental homeostasis in response to dietary stress. These results demonstrate that glucose homeostasis against dietary stress is crucial for developmental homeostasis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207