Cuticular hydrocarbons promote desiccation resistance by preventing transpiration in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desiccation is a fundamental challenge confronted by all terrestrial organisms, particularly insects. With a relatively small body size and large surface-to-volume ratio, insects are susceptible to rapid evaporative water loss and dehydration. To counter these physical constraints, insects have acquired specialized adaptations, including a hydrophobic cuticle that acts as a physical barrier to transpiration. We previously reported that genetic ablation of the oenocytes - specialized cells required to produce cuticular hydrocarbons (HCs) - significantly reduced survivorship under desiccative conditions in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Although increased transpiration - resulting from the loss of the oenocytes and HCs - was hypothesized to be responsible for the decrease in desiccation survival, this possibility was not directly tested. Here, we investigated the underlying physiological mechanisms contributing to the reduced survival of oenocyte-less (oe-) flies. Using flow-through respirometry, we show that oe- flies, regardless of sex, exhibited an increased rate of transpiration relative to wild-type controls, and that coating oe- flies with fly-derived HC extract restored the rate to near-wild-type levels. Importantly, total body water stores, including metabolic water reserves, as well as dehydration tolerance, measured as the percentage of total body water lost at the time of death, were largely unchanged in oe- flies. Together, our results directly demonstrate the critically important role played by the oenocytes and cuticular HCs to promote desiccation resistance.
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".