Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26528147›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2015

Taste processing in Drosophila larvae.

Anthi A Apostolopoulou, Anna Rist, Andreas S Thum

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Insects · 2022
    Review
  13. An assay for chemical nociception inPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Aversive and Appetitive Learning inJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Pavlovian Conditioning of LarvalFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2017
    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

3 authors.

Anthi A ApostolopoulouDepartment of Biology, University of Konstanz Konstanz, Germany.
Anna RistDepartment of Biology, University of Konstanz Konstanz, Germany.
Andreas S ThumDepartment of Biology, University of Konstanz Konstanz, Germany ; Zukunftskolleg, University of Konstanz Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sense of taste allows animals to detect chemical substances in their environment to initiate appropriate behaviors: to find food or a mate, to avoid hostile environments and predators. Drosophila larvae are a promising model organism to study gustation. Their simple nervous system triggers stereotypic behavioral responses, and the coding of taste can be studied by genetic tools at the single cell level. This review briefly summarizes recent progress on how taste information is sensed and processed by larval cephalic and pharyngeal sense organs. The focus lies on several studies, which revealed cellular and molecular mechanisms required to process sugar, salt, and bitter substances.

Indexed as

Drosophila melanogastergustationlarvaesingle cell analysistaste processing

Identifiers

PMID26528147
PMCPMC4602287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.