The Wing‐Patterning Network in the Wingless Castes of Myrmicine and Formicine Ant Species Is a Mix of Evolutionarily Labile and Non‐Labile Genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wing polyphenism in ants is the ability of a single genome to produce winged or wingless castes in a colony in response to environmental cues. Although wing polyphenism is a universal and homologous feature of ants, the gene network underlying wing polyphenism is conserved in the winged castes, but is labile in the wingless castes, that is, the network is interrupted at different points in the wingless castes of different ant species. Because the expression of all genes sampled so far in this network in the wingless castes is evolutionarily labile across species, an important question is whether all "interruption points" in the network are evolutionarily labile or are there interruption points that are evolutionarily non-labile. Here we show that in the wingless castes, the expression of the gene brinker (brk), which mediates growth, patterning, and apoptosis in the Drosophila wing disc, is non-labile; it is absent in vestigial wing discs of four ants species. In contrast, the expression of engrailed (en), a gene upstream of brk is labile; it is present in some species but absent in others. In the winged castes, both brk and en expression are conserved relative to their expression in Drosophila wing discs. The differential lability of genes in the network in wingless castes may be a general feature of networks underlying polyphenic traits. This raises the possibility that some genes, like brk, may be under stabilizing selection while most others, like en, may be evolving via directional selection or neutral drift.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".