MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315317127 · doi:10.1242/jeb.105866

Gut flora odours attract <i>Drosophila</i> to best squidgy fruit

2014· article· en· W2315317127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLarvaFlora (microbiology)Drosophila (subgenus)ZoologyForagingInsectBotanyBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans aren't the only animals that like to hang out; birds and sheep flock, cattle herd and even Drosophila enjoy swarming around a juicy piece of fruit. Reuven Dukas and colleagues from McMaster University, Canada, explain that fruit flies are particularly partial to fruit that is already infested with larvae. However, Dukas and his team had already shown that the odour that attracts the flies to feast was not produced by the fruit, the yeast residing on it, or fly and larval waste. Could bacteria associated with the flies and their larvae be responsible for the irresistible scent? Dukas and his colleagues, Isvarya Venu, Zachary Durisko and Jianping Xu, began investigating the source of the tantalising aroma (p. 1346).First, the team tested the allure of fruit infested with normal larvae (complete with their usual gut flora) and sterilised larvae for larvae and adult flies. They found that both the adults and larvae found the infested fruit most attractive when the resident larvae retained their usual gut flora, so the bacteria were responsible for the attractive odour. Next, the team investigated the larvae to discover which bacterium produced the essential scent by isolating the gut flora, which they identified as Lactobacillus brevis. And when the team tested the effect of odours produced by another bacterium – Lactobacillus plantarum, which is also harboured in the insect's intestines – on foraging larvae, they confirmed that the odours were as attractive as the odours produced by larvae that had normal gut flora. Finally, the team offered L. brevis to the fly larvae on several different food sources and found that the odours produced by the isolated bacteria were sufficient to attract the larvae.Having confirmed that Drosophila larvae are attracted by odours produced by gut bacteria, the team was curious to find out how the insects benefit from being lured to areas that the flies have already infested. However, when the team tested the larvae's preferences for food that had previously been occupied either by larvae that produced the attractive odours or by larvae that did not, they were surprised to find that the larvae didn't seem particularly attracted to fruit that had been infested with larvae producing an odour. ‘That led us to search for another factor that may lead to larval preference for used over fresh food’, says Dukas. So the team tested the larvae's preferences for food that had been churned up by burrowing larvae and food that they had poked with needles to simulate a larval infestation. This time they found that compared with intact fresh food, the larvae were much keener on the food that had already been used.So fruit fly larvae use the odours produced by the gut flora of other larvae to direct them to the best squidgy fruit. The team also suggests that a patch of food infested with hoards of munching larvae is the best recommendation of a meal's quality and point out that the insect gut flora suppress harmful microbes in the vicinity, encouraging the proliferation of microbes that are beneficial to the larvae at the expense of unsafe species, making it favourable for foraging fruit fly larvae to congregate rather than go it alone.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207