MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165928695 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12515

Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in <i><scp>D</scp>rosophila melanogaster</i>

2015· article· en· W2165928695 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stuart Wigby, Jennifer C. Perry, Yon‐Hee Kim, Laura K. Sirot

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyMatingSpermDrosophila melanogasterSperm competitionZoologyDrosophila (subgenus)Reproductive successDrosophilidaeSexual selectionPolyspermyEcologyAndrologyEmbryoGeneticsOocyteDemographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Males of many species fine‐tune their ejaculates in response to sperm competition risk. Resource availability and the number of competitors during development can also strongly influence sperm production. However, despite the key role of seminal proteins in mediating reproductive processes, it is unclear whether seminal protein investment is dependent on the developmental environment. We manipulated the developmental environment of Drosophila melanogaster by rearing flies at low and high density. As expected, this resulted in large and small (i.e. high and low condition) adult phenotypes, respectively. As predicted, large males produced more of two key seminal proteins, sex peptide (SP) and ovulin, and were more successful at obtaining matings with both virgin and previously mated females. However, there was only a weak and non‐significant trend for large males to transfer more absolute quantities of SP at mating, and thus, small males ejaculated proportionally more of their stored accessory gland SP resources. Males transferred more receptivity‐inhibiting SP to large females. Despite this, large females remated more quickly than small females and thus responded to their developmental environment over and above the quantity of SP they received. The results are consistent with two non‐mutually exclusive hypotheses. First, flies might respond to condition‐dependent reproductive opportunities, with (i) small males investing heavily in ejaculates when mating opportunities arise and large males strategically partitioning SP resources and (ii) small females remating at reduced rates because they have higher mating costs or need to replenish sperm less often. Second, flies may be primed by their larval environment to deal with similar adult population densities, with (i) males perceiving high density as signalling increased competition, leading small males to invest proportionally more SP resources at mating and (ii) females perceiving high density as signalling abundant potential mates, leading to a higher sexual receptivity threshold. Thus, by influencing the mating frequencies of both sexes, as well as the quantity of seminal proteins produced by males and received by females, the developmental environment is likely to have far‐reaching and sex‐specific consequences for sexual selection and sexual conflict.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations94
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207