Transcriptomic correlates of nutritional manipulation in a facultatively social bee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subsocial behaviour in insects consists of extended parental care and may set the stage for the evolution of cooperation through manipulation of offspring. Manipulation of brood nutrition may produce differences in developmental or adult gene regulation, but it also produces smaller offspring which may be coerced into cooperation. The eastern small carpenter bee Ceratina calcarata frequently produces a smaller under-provisioned dwarf eldest daughter (DED). These DEDs are the only offspring to forage and feed siblings. To test whether nutritional manipulation of DEDs alters gene expression, inducing cooperative sibling care, we conducted a transcriptomic study, using whole heads, to assess differences in brain gene expression among naturally provisioned regular daughters and DEDs, experimentally under-provisioned regular daughters, and experimentally supplemented DEDs, prior to social interaction. Differences in gene expression were minimal among groups but were dramatic as a function of body size as a continuous variable, suggesting that differences in gene expression are more associated with absolute differences in body size, not discrete castes or order of eclosion. Enrichment for GO terms related to hormonal regulation in small bees points to hormonal regulation of transcription factors in behavioural differences that emerge in DEDs. Subordinate behaviours thus likely involve experience and social environment, though other developmental mechanisms, such as parental care, and later adult social interactions after eclosion, may act on differences in body size and gene expression to produce the distinct behaviour of DEDs.
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".