Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31849694›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2019

Responsiveness to Sugar Solutions in the Moth

Camille Hostachy, Philippe Couzi, Melissa Hanafi-Portier, Guillaume Portemer, Alexandre Halleguen, Meena Murmu, Nina Deisig, Matthieu Dacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Nanosilica supplementation in tomato increases oviposition on stems and caterpillar mortality in the tomato pinworm.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Proboscis behavioral response of four honey beeSaudi journal of biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Camille HostachySorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Philippe CouziSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Melissa Hanafi-PortierSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Guillaume PortemerSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Alexandre HalleguenSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Meena MurmuSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Nina DeisigSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.
Matthieu DacherSorbonne Université, Université Paris Est Créteil, INRA, CNRS, IRD - Institute for Ecology and Environmental Sciences of Paris (iEES Paris), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult moths need energy and nutrients for reproducing and obtain them mainly by consuming flower nectar (a solution of sugars and other compounds). Gustatory perception gives them information on the plants they feed on. Feeding and food perception are integrated in the proboscis extension response, which occurs when their antennae touch a sugar solution. We took advantage of this reflex to explore moth sugar responsiveness depending on different parameters (i.e., sex, age, satiety, site of presentation, and composition of the solution). We observed that starvation but not age induced higher response rates to sucrose. Presentation of sucrose solutions in a randomized order confirmed that repeated sugar stimulations did not affect the response rate; however, animals were sometimes sensitized to water, indicating sucrose presentation might induce non-associative plasticity. Leg stimulation was much less efficient than antennal stimulation to elicit a response. Quinine prevented and terminated sucrose-elicited proboscis extension. Males but not females responded slightly more to sucrose than to fructose. Animals of either sex rarely reacted to glucose, but curiously, mixtures in which half sucrose or fructose were replaced by glucose elicited the same response rate than sucrose or fructose alone. Fructose synergized the response when mixed with sucrose in male but not female moths. This is consistent with the fact that nectars consumed by moths in nature are mixtures of these three sugars, which suggests an adaptation to nectar perception.

Indexed as

dose-response curvesgustatory perceptionmothnectarproboscis extension responsequininesugarsugar responsiveness

Identifiers

PMID31849694
PMCPMC6888557

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.