MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Relationship Between Brain Gene Expression and Social Behavior: Lessons from the Honey Bee

2012· review· en· W2132740022 on OpenAlexaff
Amro Zayed, Gene E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyHoney beeGene expressionGeneHeredityPhenotypeRepertoireBehavioral syndromeGeneticsTranscriptomeRegulation of gene expressionEvolutionary biologyNeuroscienceEcologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavior is a complex phenotype that is plastic and evolutionarily labile. The advent of genomics has revolutionized the field of behavioral genetics by providing tools to quantify the dynamic nature of brain gene expression in relation to behavioral output. The honey bee Apis mellifera provides an excellent platform for investigating the relationship between brain gene expression and behavior given both the remarkable behavioral repertoire expressed by members of its intricate society and the degree to which behavior is influenced by heredity and the social environment. Here, we review a linked series of studies that assayed changes in honey bee brain transcriptomes associated with natural and experimentally induced changes in behavioral state. These experiments demonstrate that brain gene expression is closely linked with behavior, that changes in brain gene expression mediate changes in behavior, and that the association between specific genes and behavior exists over multiple timescales, from physiological to evolutionary.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations222
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of GeneticsSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207