Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20111052›Full record

ArticleEMBO reports2010

Ionotropic and metabotropic mechanisms in chemoreception: 'chance or design'?

Ana Florencia Silbering, Richard Benton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EMBO reports, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Characterizing human odorant signals: insights from insect semiochemistry andPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana Florencia SilberingCenter for Integrative Genomics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Richard Benton
University of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemosensory receptors convert an enormous diversity of chemical signals from the external world into a common language of electrical activity in the brain. Mammals and insects use several families of transmembrane receptor proteins to recognize distinct classes of volatile and non-volatile chemicals that are produced by conspecifics or other environmental sources. A comparison of the signalling mechanisms of mammalian and insect receptors has revealed an unexpected functional distinction: mammals rely almost exclusively on metabotropic ligand-binding receptors, which use second messenger signalling cascades to indirectly activate ion channels, whereas insects use ionotropic receptors, which are gated directly by chemical stimuli, thereby leading to neuronal depolarization. In this review, we consider possible reasons for this dichotomy, taking into account biophysical, cell biological, ecological and evolutionary influences on how information is extracted from chemosensory cues by these animal classes.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrosophilaElectrochemistryHumansIon Channel GatingIon ChannelsIonsModels, BiologicalOdorantsReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledReceptors, OdorantSignal TransductionSmellTasteIon ChannelsIonsReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledReceptors, Odorant

Identifiers

PMID20111052
PMCPMC2838705
OpenAlexW1979871413

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.