MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027829044 · doi:10.1139/z01-079

Sensitivity of ant (<i>Cephalotes</i>) colonies and individuals to antibiotics implies feeding symbiosis with gut microorganisms

2001· article· en· W2027829044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Klaus Jaffé, Flávio Henrique Caetano, José V. Hernández, Leonardo Caraballo, Juana Vitelli–Flores, Wilmer Monsalve, Blas Dorta, Vidal Rodrı́guez Lemoine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMicroorganismMicrobiologyStenotrophomonasBacteriaPseudomonas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ants in the tribe Cephalotini are exceptional in that they maintain microorganisms in their digestive tract. To understand what these microorganisms mean to the ants, we observed the feeding habits of Cephalotes pusillus and Cephalotes atratus, finding that in nature they feed on extrafloral nectars, homopteran secretions, and bird droppings. Feeding the antibiotic kanamycin to colonies of C. pusillus in the laboratory kills them. Ants desiccate or starve rather than feed on liquids to which the antibiotics gentamycin and netilmycin have been added, but feed and survive on liquids containing nystatin, penicillin, and ampicillin. We identified over 10 microorganisms from the intestine of C. pusillus with different antibiotic-resistance patterns. The bacteria are from the genera Corynebacterium, Brevibacterium, Sphingobacterium, Ochrobactrum, Myroides, Brevundimonas, Alcaligenes, Stenotrophomonas, Moraxella, and Pseudomonas. We hypothesize that the microorganisms provide nutrients to the ants by synthesizing amino acids from carbohydrates and nitrates. We do not know whether the ants collect the bacteria from the environment, but they transmit them to their young. They culture them in their digestive tract, eventually feeding on them.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207