Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25453090›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Neuromolecular responses to social challenge: common mechanisms across mouse, stickleback fish, and honey bee.

Clare C Rittschof, Syed Abbas Bukhari, Laura G Sloofman, Joseph M Troy, Derek Caetano-Anollés, Amy Cash-Ahmed, Molly Kent, Xiaochen Lu, Yibayiri O Sanogo, Patricia A Weisner and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
30.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Linking individual fitness to the evolution of cognition.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Clare C RittschofInstitute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Entomology, Neuroscience Program, Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; and ccr22@illinois.edu generobi@illinois.edu ljstubbs@illinois.edu.
Syed Abbas BukhariInstitute for Genomic Biology, Illinois Informatics Institute.
Laura G SloofmanInstitute for Genomic Biology, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, and.
Joseph M TroyInstitute for Genomic Biology, Illinois Informatics Institute.
Derek Caetano-AnollésInstitute for Genomic Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology.
Amy Cash-AhmedInstitute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Entomology.
Molly KentInstitute for Genomic Biology, Neuroscience Program.
Xiaochen LuInstitute for Genomic Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology.
Yibayiri O SanogoInstitute for Genomic Biology, Genomics Core, Lerner Research Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 44195.
Patricia A WeisnerInstitute for Genomic Biology, Neuroscience Program.
Huimin ZhangInstitute for Genomic Biology, Cell and Developmental Biology.
Alison M BellInstitute for Genomic Biology, Neuroscience Program, Animal Biology, Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801;
Jian MaInstitute for Genomic Biology, Bioengineering, and.
Saurabh SinhaInstitute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Entomology, Computer Science.
Gene E RobinsonInstitute for Genomic Biology, Departments of Entomology, Neuroscience Program, Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801; ccr22@illinois.edu generobi@illinois.edu ljstubbs@illinois.edu.
Lisa StubbsInstitute for Genomic Biology, Neuroscience Program, Cell and Developmental Biology, ccr22@illinois.edu generobi@illinois.edu ljstubbs@illinois.edu.
Center for Genomic Science · ITSociety for Neuroscience · USBioengineering Center · RUCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · USInstitute of Molecular Biology and Biophysics · RUUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

Using sticklebacks as a model for identifying genes related to risk- taking behavR01GM082937 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI BELL, ALISON MARIE · 2008 to 2018
$2.9M
Computational Methods for Next-Generation Comparative GenomicsR01HG007352 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI MA, JIAN · 2014 to 2023
$2.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM082937
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Certain complex phenotypes appear repeatedly across diverse species due to processes of evolutionary conservation and convergence. In some contexts like developmental body patterning, there is increased appreciation that common molecular mechanisms underlie common phenotypes; these molecular mechanisms include highly conserved genes and networks that may be modified by lineage-specific mutations. However, the existence of deeply conserved mechanisms for social behaviors has not yet been demonstrated. We used a comparative genomics approach to determine whether shared neuromolecular mechanisms could underlie behavioral response to territory intrusion across species spanning a broad phylogenetic range: house mouse (Mus musculus), stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus), and honey bee (Apis mellifera). Territory intrusion modulated similar brain functional processes in each species, including those associated with hormone-mediated signal transduction and neurodevelopment. Changes in chromosome organization and energy metabolism appear to be core, conserved processes involved in the response to territory intrusion. We also found that several homologous transcription factors that are typically associated with neural development were modulated across all three species, suggesting that shared neuronal effects may involve transcriptional cascades of evolutionarily conserved genes. Furthermore, immunohistochemical analyses of a subset of these transcription factors in mouse again implicated modulation of energy metabolism in the behavioral response. These results provide support for conserved genetic "toolkits" that are used in independent evolutions of the response to social challenge in diverse taxa.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionSocial BehaviorTerritorialityAnimalsBase SequenceBeesBrainDNA PrimersEnergy MetabolismGenomicsImmunohistochemistryMiceMicroscopy, FluorescenceMolecular Sequence AnnotationMolecular Sequence DataPolymerase Chain ReactionDNA PrimersTranscription Factorsaggressionbrain metabolismgenetic hotspotNF-κB signaling

Identifiers

PMID25453090
PMCPMC4273386
OpenAlexW1967170554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.