Genetic manipulation of insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway activity has sex-biased effects on <i>Drosophila</i> body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In Drosophila , female body size is approximately 30% larger than male body size due to an increased rate of larval growth. While the mechanisms that control this sex difference in body size remain incompletely understood, recent studies suggest that the insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway (IIS) plays a role in the sex-specific regulation of growth during development. In larvae, IIS activity differs between the sexes, and there is evidence of sex-specific regulation of IIS ligands. Yet, we lack knowledge of how changes to IIS activity impact growth in each sex, as the majority of studies on IIS and body size use single- or mixed-sex groups of larvae and/or adult flies. The goal of our current study was to clarify the requirement for IIS activity in each sex during the larval growth period. To achieve this goal we used established genetic approaches to enhance, or inhibit, IIS activity, and quantified body size in male and female larvae. Overall, genotypes that inhibited IIS activity caused a female-biased decrease in body size, whereas genotypes that augmented IIS activity caused a male-specific increase in body size. This data extends our current understanding of larval growth by showing that most changes to IIS pathway activity have sex-biased effects on body size, and highlights the importance of analyzing data by sex in larval growth studies.
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) | 0.002 | 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".