MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2093161542 · doi:10.1242/jeb.111310

Paternal care is life or death to stickleback

2015· article· en· W2093161542 sur OpenAlexaff
Sarah L. Alderman

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueMarine and fisheries research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Guelph
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPaternal careOffspringPsychologySet (abstract data type)SticklebackBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneticsPregnancy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Retorts such as ‘My Dad's (insert adjective here) than your Dad!’ have haunted schoolyards for generations, but recent work published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B suggests that there might be some biological relevance to these chants. Adequate parental care is, of course, essential to offspring well being and denying this care can permanently alter how offspring respond to stressful situations. Maternal care is well known to affect the behavioral phenotype of offspring, but we know very little about the influence of paternal care. Moreover, the adaptive significance of such non-genetic parental effects on offspring behavior is so far only speculative. Katie McGhee from the University of Illinois, USA and Alison Bell from the University of Cambridge, UK wanted to know how paternal care contributes to the behavioral phenotype of offspring, and whether or not this translates to a fitness benefit.In an attempt to answer these questions, McGhee and Bell designed a set of experiments using three-spined sticklebacks. Stickleback dads are the sole caregivers for the clutch of eggs that they fertilize, providing essential life-supporting care to their wee ones by guarding the nest against hungry predators and fanning their eggs to help circulate oxygen. In the first set of experiments, the researchers removed half of a father's clutch of eggs and raised them separately as orphans, then monitored the father's behavior with the remaining eggs in order to assess the quality of care offered by a particular father. For example, while some fathers spent most of their time at the nest and frequently fanned their young (direct care), others spent more time inspecting a fake predator placed in their tank at the expense of nest guarding and fanning (defensive care). Then, when the offspring were a little older and no longer under Dad's watchful eye, McGhee and Bell tested the father-raised offspring and their orphaned siblings for anxiety-like behavior. As one might expect, orphaned fish tended to be more anxious than those that had received paternal care, but the quality of that paternal care had an even bigger effect on behavior. Orphans that missed out on the affections of a father giving direct care were considerably more anxious than their father-reared siblings, but this disparity was less pronounced when orphaned and reared siblings from defensive care fathers were compared. So, paternal care does affect offspring behavioral phenotype, but are these changes biologically relevant?In a second experiment, McGhee and Bell used a new group of juvenile sticklebacks that were raised as orphans, without any paternal care. First, they assessed each juvenile for anxiety-like behavior as in the previous experiment, and then 2 h later they placed it in a tank with a big and scary live Northern pike fish. The fish were permitted to freely interact…for a little while at least. The researchers measured how long it took for the pike to launch its first attack on the stickleback and how long it took for the little fish to become the pike's dinner. Their results were clear: the higher an orphaned stickleback scored on its anxiety test, the sooner it became pike food, underscoring that non-genetic paternal effects on stickleback behavior are directly linked to fitness. So, in sticklebacks, there is no substitute for a father's love.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,066
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetMarine and fisheries research→Travaux en français237 207→