ArticleIntegrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro2018
The tactile receptive fields of freely moving Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes.
Article in Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhibitory feedback from the motor circuit gates mechanosensory processing in Caenorhabditis elegans.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- A high-throughput method to deliver targeted optogenetic stimulation to moving C. elegans populations.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Article
- HowGenetics · 2019Review
- The tactile receptive fields of freely moving Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes.Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro · 2018Article
- Temporal processing and context dependency ineLife · 2018Article
- Microfluidics for mechanobiology of model organisms.Methods in cell biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sensory neurons embedded in skin are responsible for the sense of touch. In humans and other mammals, touch sensation depends on thousands of diverse somatosensory neurons. By contrast, Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes have six gentle touch receptor neurons linked to simple behaviors. The classical touch assay uses an eyebrow hair to stimulate freely moving C. elegans, evoking evasive behavioral responses. This assay has led to the discovery of genes required for touch sensation, but does not provide control over stimulus strength or position. Here, we present an integrated system for performing automated, quantitative touch assays that circumvents these limitations and incorporates automated measurements of behavioral responses. The Highly Automated Worm Kicker (HAWK) unites a microfabricated silicon force sensor holding a glass bead forming the contact surface and video analysis with real-time force and position control. Using this system, we stimulated animals along the anterior-posterior axis and compared responses in wild-type and spc-1(dn) transgenic animals, which have a touch defect due to expression of a dominant-negative α-spectrin protein fragment. As expected from prior studies, delivering large stimuli anterior and posterior to the mid-point of the body evoked a reversal and a speed-up, respectively. The probability of evoking a response of either kind depended on stimulus strength and location; once initiated, the magnitude and quality of both reversal and speed-up behavioral responses were uncorrelated with stimulus location, strength, or the absence or presence of the spc-1(dn) transgene. Wild-type animals failed to respond when the stimulus was applied near the mid-point. These results show that stimulus strength and location govern the activation of a characteristic motor program and that the C. elegans body surface consists of two receptive fields separated by a gap.
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.