MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093161542 · doi:10.1242/jeb.111310

Paternal care is life or death to stickleback

2015· article· en· W2093161542 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah L. Alderman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternal careOffspringPsychologySet (abstract data type)SticklebackBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retorts such as ‘My Dad's (insert adjective here) than your Dad!’ have haunted schoolyards for generations, but recent work published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B suggests that there might be some biological relevance to these chants. Adequate parental care is, of course, essential to offspring well being and denying this care can permanently alter how offspring respond to stressful situations. Maternal care is well known to affect the behavioral phenotype of offspring, but we know very little about the influence of paternal care. Moreover, the adaptive significance of such non-genetic parental effects on offspring behavior is so far only speculative. Katie McGhee from the University of Illinois, USA and Alison Bell from the University of Cambridge, UK wanted to know how paternal care contributes to the behavioral phenotype of offspring, and whether or not this translates to a fitness benefit.In an attempt to answer these questions, McGhee and Bell designed a set of experiments using three-spined sticklebacks. Stickleback dads are the sole caregivers for the clutch of eggs that they fertilize, providing essential life-supporting care to their wee ones by guarding the nest against hungry predators and fanning their eggs to help circulate oxygen. In the first set of experiments, the researchers removed half of a father's clutch of eggs and raised them separately as orphans, then monitored the father's behavior with the remaining eggs in order to assess the quality of care offered by a particular father. For example, while some fathers spent most of their time at the nest and frequently fanned their young (direct care), others spent more time inspecting a fake predator placed in their tank at the expense of nest guarding and fanning (defensive care). Then, when the offspring were a little older and no longer under Dad's watchful eye, McGhee and Bell tested the father-raised offspring and their orphaned siblings for anxiety-like behavior. As one might expect, orphaned fish tended to be more anxious than those that had received paternal care, but the quality of that paternal care had an even bigger effect on behavior. Orphans that missed out on the affections of a father giving direct care were considerably more anxious than their father-reared siblings, but this disparity was less pronounced when orphaned and reared siblings from defensive care fathers were compared. So, paternal care does affect offspring behavioral phenotype, but are these changes biologically relevant?In a second experiment, McGhee and Bell used a new group of juvenile sticklebacks that were raised as orphans, without any paternal care. First, they assessed each juvenile for anxiety-like behavior as in the previous experiment, and then 2 h later they placed it in a tank with a big and scary live Northern pike fish. The fish were permitted to freely interact…for a little while at least. The researchers measured how long it took for the pike to launch its first attack on the stickleback and how long it took for the little fish to become the pike's dinner. Their results were clear: the higher an orphaned stickleback scored on its anxiety test, the sooner it became pike food, underscoring that non-genetic paternal effects on stickleback behavior are directly linked to fitness. So, in sticklebacks, there is no substitute for a father's love.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→