Comparison and correlation between chemical profiles of cephalic salivary glands and cuticle surface of workers of <i>Apis mellifera</i> (Hymenoptera, Apidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cuticle surface of insects displays functions in communication, such as recognition. It is known that oenocytes are responsible for the origin of the compounds found in the epicuticle. Secretion of exocrine glands might be added to the original composition during the insect’s life. The aims of the present study were (i) to quantify and to qualify the chemical compounds in cephalic salivary glands (CSG) and cuticle surface of workers of Apis mellifera L., 1758; (ii) to compare chemical profiles of both gland and cuticle; (iii) to verify if the epicuticular and CSG profile compositions allow separation of the workers into phase-related groups. Glands and wings of newly emerged workers, nurses, and foragers were analyzed by gas chromatography – mass spectrometry. The results have shown that the main compounds in both were hydrocarbons. The Mantel correspondence analysis showed that there was relatively strong correspondence between CSG and cuticular surface in all groups, mainly nurses and foragers. From a total of 37 detected compounds, 29 were the same in both compartments. The results indicated that the gland secretion might be used to replenish the cuticular compounds. In conclusion, glands and cuticle profiles were phase-related and the CSG may be a potential auxiliary source of cuticular hydrocarbon replenishment in the studied species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".