MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415898057 · doi:10.1016/j.cois.2025.101457

The role of insulin and octopamine in regulating energy homeostasis and locomotion in insects

2025· review· en· W4415898057 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rituja S Bisen, Sander Liessem, Martina Held, Jan M. Ache

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Insect Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNext Generation Network for NeuroscienceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftFonds de recherche du QuébecNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnergy homeostasisOctopamine (neurotransmitter)ForagingHomeostasisInsulinGlucose homeostasisEnergy expenditureEnergy balanceLocomotor activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining energy homeostasis is a fundamental requirement for survival. At the core, animals must balance periods of food-searching and feeding with other essential, energy-consuming behaviors. This also applies to insects, which spend a considerable fraction of their lifetime foraging - sometimes under extreme conditions. The motivation to search for food is increased by a lack of energy stores, which drives a hunger signal generated by the interplay between the depletion of energy stores, enteroceptors, and neuroendocrine signaling pathways. These changes alter the internal state of the animal, which modulates the activity of sensorimotor circuits to drive behavioral changes. Here, we review recent insights into the modulation of locomotor activity and foraging by two systems that play critical and antagonistic roles in linking energy homeostasis to behavioral changes in insects and other animals: the insulin and the octopamine system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Insect ScienceSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207