MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023092842 · doi:10.1139/z05-108

Alarm pheromone induces a transgenerational wing polyphenism in the pea aphid, <i>Acyrthosiphon</i> <i>pisum</i>

2005· article· en· W2023092842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua O. Podjasek, L. Bošnjak, Daniel J. Brooker, Edward B. Mondor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAcyrthosiphon pisumPolyphenismBiologyAphidPheromonePredationAlateAphididaeTransgenerational epigeneticsInsectOffspringZoologyBotanyEcologyPhenotypic plasticityHomopteraGeneticsPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to increased predation risk, many organisms exhibit transgenerational polyphenisms whereby offspring have behavioural and (or) morphological adaptations to avoid natural enemies. The mechanisms underlying altered phenotypic expression, however, are not well understood. Aphids commonly exhibit a transgenerational wing-induction polyphenism in response to predators and parasitoids, but the stimuli inducing winged offspring production have not yet been identified. As aphids commonly emit the alarm pheromone (E)-β-farnesene (EBF) when physically attacked, this compound is a reliable signal of increased predation risk for asexual conspecifics. Here we show that maternal detection of EBF induces a transgenerational wing polyphenism in offspring of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris, 1776). In response to 50, 500, or 5000 ng of EBF vapor, aphids responded with 2.5-, 5.0-, and 6.0-fold increases in winged offspring production, respectively. Thus, alarm pheromone may alter aphid transgenerational phenotypic expression, thereby influencing aphid – natural enemy dynamics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207