Functional characterization of CCHamides and deorphanization of their receptors in the yellow fever mosquito, <i>Aedes aegypti</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a widely distributed anthropophilic mosquito species and vector of various arboviruses, Aedes aegypti poses a significant threat to human health on a global scale. Investigating mosquito neuropeptides allows us to better understand their physiology. The neuropeptides CCHamide1 (CCHa-1) and CCHamide-2 (CCHa-2) and their associated G protein-coupled receptors (CCHa-1R and CCHa-2R) were recently identified and studied across insects. However, expression profiles and physiological roles of CCHamides and their receptors in many other insects, including A. aegypti , remain unclear. This research aimed to quantify and localize the expression of CCHamides along with their receptors and to elucidate their physiological function in the yellow fever mosquito. RT-qPCR analysis revealed transcript abundance of CCHamides and receptors changes over development. Differential expression was also observed in tissues/organs of adult mosquitoes indicating CCHa-1 and CCHa-2 transcripts are most highly enriched in the midgut, while receptors are expressed across various tissues. Further, CCHamides were immunolocalized in neurons in the brain and ventral nerve cord along with enteroendocrine cells in the posterior midgut adjacent to the midgut-hindgut junction, corroborating their transcript expression profiles. Using different mass spectrometrical approaches, presence of CCHamides were confirmed in the brain of both sexes, including the pars intercerebralis of female mosquitoes, as well as in the gut of adult mosquitoes. For chemical identification of predicted CCHamides, we analyzed brain and gut extracts by ESI-Q Exactive Orbitrap MS and resulting fragmentations confirmed CCHa1 and CCHa2 in brain and midgut samples of both male and female mosquitoes. A heterologous functional assay was used to confirm the specificity and sensitivity of the two CCHamide receptors by assessing their activation in response to diverse mosquito peptides, which confirmed CCHa-1 and CCHa-2 as the natural ligands. Finally, using a capillary feeder (CAFE) bioassay, our results suggest that CCHa-2 modulates feeding behaviour in female mosquitoes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".