Cell type specific allometry controls sex-differences in <i>Drosophila</i> body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Species and sex-specific differences in organ size are fundamental features of animal biology, yet the mechanisms that drive these differences remain debated. Adult female Drosophila are larger than males. While most organs are present across both sexes, the underlying mechanisms driving sex-specific organ and body size scaling of Drosophila remain unclear. Using single-nucleus transcriptomes from the Fly Cell Atlas, combined with experimental validation, we show that different Drosophila organs scale through distinct strategies, including cell size, cell number, or a combination of both, in an allometric rather than uniform manner. Larger female flight muscles develop from more myoblasts than in males, while cardiomyocyte numbers are the same despite forming a larger heart in females. Female fat body cells are larger and express more ribosomal protein-coding mRNAs, supporting increased cell size. In contrast, males have a greater number of fat body cells. Together, this sex-specific allometry in cell size and number define the cellular basis for differences in body and organ size between sexes in Drosophila . By uncovering how a conserved developmental system produces sex-specific proportions through distinct cellular strategies, our work offers a framework for dissecting sex differences in other species and systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".