ArticleBMC neuroscience2007
Exploratory behaviour in NO-dependent cyclase mutants of Drosophila shows defects in coincident neuronal signalling.
Article in BMC neuroscience, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free flight odor tracking in Drosophila: Effect of wing chemosensors, sex and pheromonal gene regulation.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- A large-scale behavioral screen to identify neurons controlling motor programs in the Drosophila brain.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2013Article
- Social environment influences performance in a cognitive task in natural variants of the foraging gene.PloS one · 2013Article
- A simple assay to study social behavior in Drosophila: measurement of social space within a group.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2012Article
- Continued neurogenesis in adult Drosophila as a mechanism for recruiting environmental cue-dependent variants.PloS one · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrosophila flies explore the environment very efficiently in order to colonize it. They explore collectively, not individually, so that when a few land on a food spot, they attract the others by signs. This behaviour leads to aggregation of individuals and optimizes the screening of mates and egg-laying on the most favourable food spots.
resultsFlies perform cycles of exploration/aggregation depending on the resources of the environment. This behavioural ecology constitutes an excellent model for analyzing simultaneous processing of neurosensory information. We reasoned that the decision of flies to land somewhere in order to achieve aggregation is based on simultaneous integration of signals (visual, olfactory, acoustic) during their flight. On the basis of what flies do in nature, we designed laboratory tests to analyze the phenomenon of neuronal coincidence. We screened many mutants of genes involved in neuronal metabolism and the synaptic machinery.
conclusionMutants of NO-dependent cyclase show a specifically-marked behaviour phenotype, but on the other hand they are associated with moderate biochemical defects. We show that these mutants present errors in integrative and/or coincident processing of signals, which are not reducible to the functions of the peripheral sensory cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.