Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23139891›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2012

Weak patriline effects are present in the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of isolated Formica exsecta ants but they disappear in the colony environment.

Stephen Martin, Kalevi Trontti, Sue Shemilt, Falko Drijfhout, Roger Butlin, Duncan Jackson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephen MartinDepartment of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield Sheffield, S10 2TN, U.K.
Kalevi Trontti
Sue Shemilt
Falko Drijfhout
Roger Butlin
Duncan Jackson
University of Sheffield · GBKeele University · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical recognition cues are used to discriminate among species, con-specifics, and potentially between patrilines in social insect colonies. There is an ongoing debate about the possible persistence of patriline cues despite evidence for the mixing of colony odors via a "gestalt" mechanism in social insects, because patriline recognition could lead to nepotism. We analyzed the variation in recognition cues (cuticular hydrocarbons) with different mating frequencies or queen numbers in 688 Formica exsecta ants from 76 colonies. We found no increase in the profile variance as genetic diversity increased, indicating that patriline effects were absent or possibly obscured by a gestalt mechanism. We then demonstrated that an isolated individual's profile changed considerably relative to their colony profile, before stabilizing after 5 days. We used these isolated individuals to eliminate the masking effects of the gestalt mechanism, and we detected a weak but statistically significant patriline effect in isolated adult workers and also in newly emerged callow workers. Thus, our evidence suggests that genetic variation in the cuticular hydrocarbon profile of F. exsecta ants (n-alkanes and alkenes) resulted in differences among patrilines, but they were obscured in the colony environment, thereby avoiding costly nepotistic behaviors.

Indexed as

Alkanesalkenesantscuticular hydrocarbonnepotismpatrilinesrecognition

Identifiers

PMID23139891
PMCPMC3488683
OpenAlexW2003960636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.