MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400969617 · doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2024.105610

Prolactin modulates changes in parental care behaviour in response to perceived paternity in bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)

2024· article· en· W4400969617 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Churchman, Timothy J.A. Hain, Bryan D. Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueHormones and Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPaternal careProlactinOffspringParental investmentHormoneBiologyReproductionFish <Actinopterygii>EndocrinologyEndogenyInternal medicineZoologyEcologyMedicinePregnancyGeneticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolactin is a hormone conserved across all vertebrates and is renowned for its role in reproduction and parental care. Previous studies on prolactin in fish have primarily relied on administration of mammalian prolactin and have suggested that increases in prolactin lead to greater parental care. However, the influence of endogenous prolactin on fish parental care remains unknown. Here, we measure circulating concentrations of endogenous prolactin during parental care in a fish and link these concentrations to parental care behaviour. We provide evidence that male bluegill sunfish with higher circulating concentrations of prolactin provide more parental care to their offspring. Furthermore, we show that nesting males with experimentally reduced perceived paternity have lower circulating prolactin concentrations and perform fewer parental behaviours, facilitating an adaptive investment in offspring in response to paternity cues. Our findings not only confirm the role of endogenous prolactin in modulating parental care behaviour in a fish but also provide a mechanism underlying the adaptive changes in parental care made in response to perceived paternity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHormones and BehaviorSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207