MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281994753 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104499

Temporal responses of bumblebee gustatory neurons to sugars

2022· article· en· W4281994753 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rachel H. Parkinson, Sébastien Kessler, Jennifer Scott, Alexander Simpson, Jennifer J. Bu, Mushtaq Al‐Esawy, Adam Mahdi, Ashwin Miriyala, Geraldine A. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRoyal SocietyLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsPalatabilityNectarTasteSugarFructoseMaltoseSucroseBiologyNutrient sensingUmamiTaste receptorArthropod mouthpartsChemistryFood scienceBotanyBiochemistryZoologySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sense of taste permits the recognition of valuable nutrients and the avoidance of potential toxins. Previously, we found that bumblebees have a specialized mechanism for sensing sugars whereby two gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) within the galeal sensilla of the bees' mouthparts exhibit bursts of spikes. Here, we show that the temporal firing patterns of these GRNs separate sugars into four distinct groups that correlate with sugar nutritional value and palatability. We also identified a third GRN that responded to stimulation with relatively high concentrations of fructose, sucrose, and maltose. Sugars that were nonmetabolizable or toxic suppressed the responses of bursting GRNs to sucrose. These abilities to encode information about sugar value are a refinement to the bumblebee's sense of sweet taste that could be an adaptation that enables precise calculations of the nature and nutritional value of floral nectar.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207