Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23841839›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of neuroscience2013

Early olfactory processing in Drosophila: mechanisms and principles.

Rachel I Wilson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 222 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
222citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

222 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 426 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Recurrent connectivity supports carbon dioxide sensitivity inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article

162 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel I WilsonDepartment of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. rachel_wilson@hms.harvard.edu
Harvard University · US

Funding

Synaptic and Circuit Mechanisms of Olfactory ProcessingR01DC008174 · NIDCD · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI WILSON, RACHEL · 2006 to 2021
$5.5M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008174NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC008174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the olfactory system of Drosophila melanogaster, it is relatively straightforward to target in vivo measurements of neural activity to specific processing channels. This, together with the numerical simplicity of the Drosophila olfactory system, has produced rapid gains in our understanding of Drosophila olfaction. This review summarizes the neurophysiology of the first two layers of this system: the peripheral olfactory receptor neurons and their postsynaptic targets in the antennal lobe. We now understand in some detail the cellular and synaptic mechanisms that shape odor representations in these neurons. Together, these mechanisms imply that interesting neural adaptations to environmental statistics have occurred. These mechanisms also place some fundamental constraints on early sensory processing that pose challenges for higher brain regions. These findings suggest some general principles with broad relevance to early sensory processing in other modalities.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrosophilaOdorantsOlfactory PathwaysOlfactory Receptor NeuronsSmell

Identifiers

PMID23841839
PMCPMC3933953
OpenAlexW2158976454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.