<i>Foraging</i> gene expression patterns in queens, workers, and males in a eusocial insect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive division of labour is based on biased expression of complementary parental behaviours, brood production (egg-laying) by queens and brood care (in particular, brood-provisioning) by workers. In many social insect species, queens provision brood when establishing colonies at the beginning of a breeding season and reproductive division of labour begins with the emergence of workers. In many social insect species, the expression of foraging (for) mRNA is associated with the intensity of foraging behaviour and therefore brood-provisioning. However, only two studies have compared queen and worker for expression levels and neither accounted for transcript splice variation. In this study, we compare the expression level of the for-α transcript variant across four life stages of the queen caste, two behavioural groups of workers, and males of a eusocial sweat bee Lasioglossum laevissimum (Smith, 1853). Foundresses collected prior to the onset of the foraging season and males had the highest for-α expression levels. All active (post-hibernatory) queens and workers had similar for-α expression levels independent of behaviour. These results suggest that the for gene in L. laevissimum acts as a primer before foraging activity and that caste-specific expression patterns correlate with the timing of foraging activity in queens and workers.
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".