Physiological Regulation of Growth during Social Ascension in a Group-Living Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In social groups, dominant animals typically are larger and have better access to resources than subordinates. When subordinates are given the opportunity to ascend to a dominant position, they will elevate their rates of growth to help secure dominance. This study investigated the physiological mechanisms facilitating this increased growth. Using the group-living cichlid, Neolamprologus pulcher, we investigated whether the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system-a key regulator of growth-is involved in the regulation of growth during social ascension. We also assessed differences in energy storage and expenditure among dominant, subordinate, and ascending males to determine the energetic costs associated with ascension. Daily growth rates tripled during ascension, and ascending males expended more energy after ascension, owing to higher rates of energetically costly social behaviors, increased locomotor activity, and larger home ranges. Ascenders did not increase food intake to offset increasing energetic costs but had half the liver glycogen energy stores of subordinates. Together, these results indicate a reliance on stockpiled energy reserves to fuel the high energetic demands associated with ascension. Transcript abundance of IGF binding proteins 1 (igfbp1) and 2a (igfbp2a) were low in ascenders relative to subordinates, suggesting a higher capacity for growth during ascension through increased bioavailability of circulating IGF-1. Our findings provide clear evidence of the energetic costs of social ascension and offer novel insight into the physiological mechanisms modulating the social regulation of growth.
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 | 0.000 | 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".