MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recent Advances in Behavioral (Epi)Genetics in Eusocial Insects

2018· review· en· W2891215284 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Comzit Opachaloemphan, Hua Yan, Alexandra Leibholz, Claude Desplan, Danny Reinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Eye InstituteYork UniversityHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsEusocialityBiologySex pheromoneEvolutionary biologyEpigeneticsForagingGeneticsEcologyHymenopteraGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eusocial insects live in societies in which distinct family members serve specific roles in maintaining the colony and advancing the reproductive ability of a few select individuals. Given the genetic similarity of all colony members, the diversity of morphologies and behaviors is surprising. Social communication relies on pheromones and olfaction, as shown by mutants of orco, the universal odorant receptor coreceptor, and through electrophysiological analysis of neuronal responses to pheromones. Additionally, neurohormonal factors and epigenetic regulators play a key role in caste-specific behavior, such as foraging and caste switching. These studies start to allow an understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying social behavior and provide a technological foundation for future studies of eusocial insects. In this review, we highlight recent findings in eusocial insects that advance our understanding of genetic and epigenetic regulations of social behavior and provide perspectives on future studies using cutting-edge technologies.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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