MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044641330 · doi:10.1101/2020.07.24.219550

Foraging gene and xenobiotic stresses relationships in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>

2020· preprint· en· W3044641330 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcel Amichot, Sophie Tarès

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'EnvironnementUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsForagingDrosophila melanogasterBiologyDrosophila (subgenus)XenobioticGeneInsectEcologyGeneticsCell biologyZoologyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In several insect species, the foraging behaviour has been demonstrated to be controlled by the foraging gene ( for ) which encodes for a cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG). In wild Drosophila populations, rover and sitter individuals coexist and are characterized by high and low PKG activity levels respectively. Because of their increased foraging behaviour, we postulated that rover flies are more exposed to environmental stresses than sitter flies. Thus, we tested whether rover and sitter flies differ in their fitness by using insecticides as chemical stressors. We showed that their responses are different depending on the insecticide used and are linked to variations of cytochrome P450s activities. Furthermore, the expression of the insecticide metabolizing cytochrome P450 Cyp6a2 was shown to be under the control of the for gene. We evidence here a new physiological function for the for gene in Drosophila and we demonstrate its involvement in the adaptation to chemicals in the environment.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207