MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2315317127 · doi:10.1242/jeb.105866

Gut flora odours attract <i>Drosophila</i> to best squidgy fruit

2014· article· en· W2315317127 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueInsect Utilization and Effects
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyLarvaFlora (microbiology)Drosophila (subgenus)ZoologyForagingInsectBotanyBacteriaEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Humans aren't the only animals that like to hang out; birds and sheep flock, cattle herd and even Drosophila enjoy swarming around a juicy piece of fruit. Reuven Dukas and colleagues from McMaster University, Canada, explain that fruit flies are particularly partial to fruit that is already infested with larvae. However, Dukas and his team had already shown that the odour that attracts the flies to feast was not produced by the fruit, the yeast residing on it, or fly and larval waste. Could bacteria associated with the flies and their larvae be responsible for the irresistible scent? Dukas and his colleagues, Isvarya Venu, Zachary Durisko and Jianping Xu, began investigating the source of the tantalising aroma (p. 1346).First, the team tested the allure of fruit infested with normal larvae (complete with their usual gut flora) and sterilised larvae for larvae and adult flies. They found that both the adults and larvae found the infested fruit most attractive when the resident larvae retained their usual gut flora, so the bacteria were responsible for the attractive odour. Next, the team investigated the larvae to discover which bacterium produced the essential scent by isolating the gut flora, which they identified as Lactobacillus brevis. And when the team tested the effect of odours produced by another bacterium – Lactobacillus plantarum, which is also harboured in the insect's intestines – on foraging larvae, they confirmed that the odours were as attractive as the odours produced by larvae that had normal gut flora. Finally, the team offered L. brevis to the fly larvae on several different food sources and found that the odours produced by the isolated bacteria were sufficient to attract the larvae.Having confirmed that Drosophila larvae are attracted by odours produced by gut bacteria, the team was curious to find out how the insects benefit from being lured to areas that the flies have already infested. However, when the team tested the larvae's preferences for food that had previously been occupied either by larvae that produced the attractive odours or by larvae that did not, they were surprised to find that the larvae didn't seem particularly attracted to fruit that had been infested with larvae producing an odour. ‘That led us to search for another factor that may lead to larval preference for used over fresh food’, says Dukas. So the team tested the larvae's preferences for food that had been churned up by burrowing larvae and food that they had poked with needles to simulate a larval infestation. This time they found that compared with intact fresh food, the larvae were much keener on the food that had already been used.So fruit fly larvae use the odours produced by the gut flora of other larvae to direct them to the best squidgy fruit. The team also suggests that a patch of food infested with hoards of munching larvae is the best recommendation of a meal's quality and point out that the insect gut flora suppress harmful microbes in the vicinity, encouraging the proliferation of microbes that are beneficial to the larvae at the expense of unsafe species, making it favourable for foraging fruit fly larvae to congregate rather than go it alone.

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)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

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 Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · 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'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
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

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental BiologyMême sujetInsect Utilization and EffectsTravaux en français237 207