MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389150074 · doi:10.1002/jnr.25271

Glia‐specific expression of neuropeptide receptor <i>Lgr4</i> regulates development and adult physiology in <i>Drosophila</i>

2023· article· en· W4389150074 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongyu Miao, Yanan Wei, Seung Gee Lee, Zekun Wu, Jasdeep Kaur, Woo Jae Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarbin Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyGene knockdownNeuropeptideReceptorDrosophila (subgenus)NeuroscienceG protein-coupled receptorSignal transductionGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to the human brain, Drosophila glia may well be divided into several subtypes that each carries out specific functions. Glial GPCRs play key roles in crosstalk between neurons and glia. Drosophila Lgr4 (dLgr4) is a human relaxin receptor homolog involved in angiogenesis, cardiovascular regulation, collagen remodeling, and wound healing. A recent study suggests that ilp7 might be the ligand for Lgr4 and regulates escape behavior of Drosophila larvae. Here we demonstrate that Drosophila Lgr4 expression in glial cells, not neurons, is necessary for early development, adult behavior, and lifespan. Reducing the Lgr4 level in glial cells disrupts Drosophila development, while knocking down other LGR family members in glia has no impact. Adult-specific knockdown of Lgr4 in glia but not neurons reduce locomotion, male reproductive success, and animal longevity. The investigation of how glial expression of Lgr4 contributes to this behavioral alteration will increase our understanding of how insulin signaling via glia selectively modulates neuronal activity and behavior.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207