ATP and glutamate coordinate contractions in the freshwater sponge <i>Ephydatia muelleri</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sponges (phylum Porifera) are an early diverging animal lineage without nervous and muscular systems, and yet they are able to produce coordinated whole-body contractions in response to disturbances. Little is known about the underlying signalling mechanisms in coordinating such responses. Previous studies demonstrated that sponges respond specifically to chemicals such as l-glutamate and γ-amino-butyric acid (GABA), which trigger and prevent contractions, respectively. Genes for purinergic P2X-like receptors are present in several sponge genomes, leading us to ask whether ATP works with glutamate to coordinate contractions in sponges as it does in other animal nervous systems. Using pharmacological approaches on the freshwater sponge Ephydatia muelleri, we show that ATP is involved in coordinating contractions. Bath application of ATP caused a rapid, sustained expansion of the excurrent canals in a dose-dependent manner. Complete contractions occurred when ATP was added in the presence of apyrase, an enzyme that hydrolyses ATP. Application of ADP, the first metabolic product of ATP hydrolysis, triggered complete contractions, whereas AMP, the subsequent metabolite, did not trigger a response. Blocking ATP from binding and activating P2X receptors with pyridoxalphosphate-6-azophenyl-2',4'-disulfonic acid (PPADS) prevented both glutamate- and ATP-triggered contractions, suggesting that ATP works downstream of glutamate. Bioinformatic analysis revealed two P2X receptor sequences, one of which groups with other vertebrate P2X receptors. Altogether, our results confirm that purinergic signalling by ATP is involved in coordinating contractions in the freshwater sponge.
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".