<i>Drosophila</i> insulin‐like peptides: from expression to functions – a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insulin‐like peptides (ILPs) belong to the insulin superfamily and act as hormones, neuromediators, and growth factors during the post‐embryonic life‐cycle stages of insects. These peptides are encoded by different genes in various species. In the genus Drosophila, eight peptides are known, seven of which are likely to bind the Drosophila insulin receptor, whereas DILP8 is a known ligand of the Lgr3 receptor. Binding of DILPs 1‐7 to receptors leads to activation of intracellular proteins related to the conserved insulin/IGF (insulin‐like growth factors) signaling pathway. The insulin pathway acts within a complex physiological regulatory network involved in the coordination of development, growth, behavior, metabolism, lifespan, and cognitive functions in insects. The current review summarizes recent data about the structure and function of ILPs in fruit flies. The role of environmental factors and genetic manipulations in modulating the functions of DILPs and their association with lifespan and metabolism of Drosophila are assessed. Further investigation and identification of pharmacological or biotechnological interventions that may decrease insulin/IGF signaling could be a highly promising approach for extension of human health span and 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".