Reproductive constraint is a developmental mechanism that maintains social harmony in advanced ant societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hallmark of eusociality in ants is the reproductive division of labor between queens and workers. Yet, nothing is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying reproduction in this group. We therefore compared the developmental genetic capacity of queens and workers to reproduce in several eusocially advanced species from the two largest subfamilies of ants, the Myrmicinae and Formicinae. In flies, the asymmetric localization of maternally encoded determinants (mRNAs and proteins) during oogenesis establishes oocyte polarity and subsequently ensures proper embryonic development. Vasa and nanos, two key maternal determinants, are properly localized in the posterior of queen oocytes, but their localization is impaired in those of the workers. This mislocalization leads to severe embryonic defects in worker progeny, and therefore, represents a constraint on worker reproduction that we call 'reproductive constraint.' We show that reproductive constraint is phylogenetically widespread, and is at high levels in most species tested. Reproductive constraint can simultaneously reduce or eliminate the workers' ability to produce viable eggs for reproduction, while preserving their ability to produce trophic eggs for nutrition, and thus, may have been the basis for the evolutionary retention of worker ovaries in the majority of ants. We propose that high levels of reproductive constraint has most likely evolved as a consequence of selection at the colony level to reduce or eliminate any potential conflict over worker reproduction, therefore maintaining harmony and colony efficiency in advanced ant societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".