MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980387611 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0809463106

Molecular basis for changes in behavioral state in ant social behaviors

2009· article· en· W1980387611 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Lucas, Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingANTBiologyEcologyNest (protein structural motif)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hallmark of behavior is that animals respond to environmental change by switching from one behavioral state to another. However, information on the molecular underpinnings of these behavioral shifts and how they are mediated by the environment is lacking. The ant Pheidole pallidula with its morphologically and behaviorally distinct major and minor workers is an ideal system to investigate behavioral shifts. The physically larger majors are predisposed to defend the ant nest, whereas the smaller minors are the foragers. Despite this predisposition, majors are able to shift to foraging according to the needs of the colony. We show that the ant foraging (ppfor) gene, which encodes a cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG), mediates this shift. Majors have higher brain PKG activities than minors, and the spatial distribution of the PPFOR protein differs in these workers. Specifically, majors express the PPFOR protein in 5 cells in the anterior face of the ant brain, whereas minors do not. Environmental manipulations show that PKG is lower in the presence of a foraging stimulus and higher when defense is required. Finally, pharmacological activation of PKG increases defense and reduces foraging behavior. Thus, PKG signaling plays a critical role in P. pallidula behavioral shifts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207