Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15252880›Full record

ReviewMicroscopy research and technique2004

Anatomical and molecular design of the Drosophila antenna as a flagellar auditory organ.

Sokol V Todi, Yashoda Sharma, Daniel F Eberl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microscopy research and technique, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Organization of an Ascending Circuit that Conveys Flight Motor State.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 3D escape: an alternative paradigm for spatial orientation studies in insects.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. AFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Functional Interaction BetweenFrontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. UsingDisease models & mechanisms · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sokol V TodiInterdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA.
Yashoda Sharma
Daniel F Eberl

Funding

Drosophila deafness genes: analysis of chordotonal organ functionsR01DC004848 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI EBERL, DANIEL F · 2001 to 2010
$3.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS DC04848NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004848
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The molecular basis of hearing is less well understood than many other senses. However, recent studies in Drosophila have provided some important steps towards a molecular understanding of hearing. In this report, we summarize these findings and their implications on the relationship between hearing and touch. In Drosophila, hearing is accomplished by Johnston's Organ, a chordotonal organ containing over 150 scolopidia within the second antennal segment. We will discuss anatomical features of the antenna and how they contribute to the function of this flagellar auditory receptor. The effects of several mutants, identified through mutagenesis screens or as homologues of vertebrate auditory genes, will be summarized. Based on evidence gathered from these studies, we propose a speculative model for how the chordotonal organ might function.

Indexed as

AnimalsCiliaDrosophilaHearingSense Organs

Identifiers

PMID15252880
PMCPMC1805627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.