MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cellular and molecular components regulating social behaviour of male <i>Drosophila</i>

2016· article· en· W4389008874 on OpenAlexaffabout
Woo Jae Kim, Lily Yeh Jan, Yuh Nung Jan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyMatingMushroom bodiesContext (archaeology)NeuroscienceDrosophila (subgenus)Circadian clockEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGeneCircadian rhythmDrosophila melanogaster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental conditions, such as the socio‐sexual context, can change rapidly. In these circumstances, the ability of animal of a genotype to express a different phenotype according to the environment can improve survival and reproductive success. A primary function of males for many species involves mating with females for reproduction. For males, current mating investment can often be subject to trade‐offs with future mating opportunities to maximize fitness in a rapidly changing socio‐sexual environment. Males have a finite resource for reproduction; hence a ‘time investment strategy’ has evolved to maximize reproductive success. Drosophila males respond to the presence of rivals by prolonging mating duration to increase the chance of passing on genes. In previous studies, we examined the genetic network and neural circuits that regulate rival‐induced longer mating duration (LMD). LMD can be induced solely via visual stimuli. LMD depends on the circadian clock genes timeless and period, but not Clock or cycle. LMD involves the memory circuit of the ellipsoid body (EB). Further, we identified a small subset of clock neurons in the male brain that regulate LMD via neuropeptide signaling. More recently, we investigated a novel behavioral plasticity whereby male fruit flies exhibit a shortened mating duration when sexually satiated, called ‘Shorter‐Mating‐Duration (SMD)’. Both sexual experiences and contact‐based chemoreception is necessary to induce SMD. SMD requires the sexually dimorphic Gr5a‐positive neurons to detect female body pheromones, and can be induced by gustatory stimuli. The memory circuitry within the ellipsoid body (EB) and mushroom body (MB) brain regions is crucial to process this satiety state. SMD depends on the circadian clock genes Clock and cycle, but not timeless or period. SMD also relies on signaling via the neuropeptide sNPF, but not PDF or NPF. Sexual experience modifies the neuronal activity of a subset of sNPF‐positive neurons involved in neuropeptide signaling, which modulates SMD. Thus, our study delineates the molecular and cellular basis for SMD – a plastic social behavior that can be modified by sexual experience. Our studies delineate part of the molecular and cellular basis of plastic behaviors elicited by different socio‐sexual environments. LMD together with SMD can be a model to study how the socio‐sexual environment affects on male behavioral plasticity via neural circuitry. Support or Funding Information HHMI NIH R01 University of Ottawa Startup grant

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 score0.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→French-language works237,207→