MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401546310 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114625

Taste cells expressing Ionotropic Receptor 94e reciprocally impact feeding and egg laying in Drosophila

2024· article· en· W4401546310 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Guillemin, Jinfang Li, Viktoriya Li, Sasha A.T. McDowell, Kayla Audette, Grace Davis, Meghan Jelen, Samy Slamani, Liam Kelliher, Michael D. Gordon, Molly Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of VermontNational Science FoundationBRAIN Initiative
KeywordsIonotropic effectDrosophila (subgenus)Drosophila melanogasterCell biologyBiologyReceptorTasteGeneticsNeuroscienceGeneGlutamate receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemosensory cells across the body of Drosophila melanogaster evaluate the environment to prioritize certain behaviors. Previous mapping of gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) on the fly labellum identified a set of neurons in L-type sensilla that express Ionotropic Receptor 94e (IR94e), but the impact of IR94e GRNs on behavior remains unclear. We used optogenetics and chemogenetics to activate IR94e neurons and found that they drive mild feeding suppression but enhance egg laying. In vivo calcium imaging revealed that IR94e GRNs respond strongly to certain amino acids, including glutamate, and that IR94e plus co-receptors IR25a and IR76b are required for amino acid detection. Furthermore, IR94e mutants show behavioral changes to solutions containing amino acids, including increased consumption and decreased egg laying. Overall, our results suggest that IR94e GRNs on the fly labellum discourage feeding and encourage egg laying as part of an important behavioral switch in response to certain chemical cues.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207