Is <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> Stress Odorant (dSO) really an alarm pheromone?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Social interactions are crucial for the reproduction and survival of many organisms, including those using visual, auditory and olfactory cues to signal the presence of danger. Drosophila melanogaster emits an olfactory alarm signal, termed the Drosophila stress odorant (dSO) in response to mechanical agitation or electric shock, and conspecifics avoid areas previously occupied by stressed individuals. However, the contextual, genetic and neural underpinnings of the emission of, and response to dSO, have received little attention. Using a binary choice assay, we determined that neither age and sex of emitters, nor the time of the day, affected the emission or avoidance of dSO. However, both sex and mating status affected the response to dSO. We also demonstrated that dSO was not species specific so it should not be considered a pheromone but a general alarm signal for Drosophila. However, the response levels to both intra and inter-specific cues differed between species and possible reasons for these differences are discussed. HIGHLIGHTS Emission of dSO, a highly volatile chemical blend emitted by stressed flies, is not context specific Response to dSO is context specific, affected by factors such as age and mating status. As flies respond to volatiles for stressed heterospecifics, dSO should not be considered an alarm pheromone, but as an alarm cue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".