Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35390643›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2022

Of flies, mice and neural control of food intake: lessons to learn from both models.

Xinyue Cui, Anna Gruzdeva, Haein Kim, Nilay Yapici

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Gut-brain communication in Drosophila melanogaster.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2025
    Review
  3. A gut-brain-gut interoceptive circuit loop gates sugar ingestion inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinyue CuiDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Anna GruzdevaDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Haein KimDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Nilay YapiciDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 14853, Ithaca, NY, USA. Electronic address: ny96@cornell.edu.
Cornell University · US

Funding

Molecular and Neural Mechanisms Regulating Foraging and Food IntakeR35GM133698 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI Nilay Yapici · 2019 to 2026
$2.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM133698
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In her book, A Room of One's Own, the famous author Virginia Woolf writes "One cannot think well, love well, sleep well if one has not dined well". This is true. All animals need to forage for food and consume specific nutrients to maintain their physiological homeostasis, maximize their fitness and their reproduction. After decades of research in humans and many model organisms, we now know that our brain is one of the key players that control what, when, and how much we eat. In this review, we discuss the recent literature on neural control of food intake behaviors in mice and flies with the view that these two model organisms complement one another in efforts to uncover conserved principles brains use to regulate energy metabolism and food ingestion.

Indexed as

Energy MetabolismFeeding BehaviorAnimalsEatingFemaleHomeostasisMiceSleep

Identifiers

PMID35390643
PMCPMC9167741
OpenAlexW4225947507

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.