Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33062418›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

The relationship between individual phenotype and the division of labour in naked mole-rats: it's complicated.

James D Gilbert, Stephen J Rossiter, Chris G Faulkes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The evolution of division of labour: preconditions and evolutionary feedback.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Housing and Husbandry Alternatives for Naked Mole Rat Colonies Used in Research Settings.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James D GilbertSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen J RossiterSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Chris G FaulkesSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe naked mole-rat (

methodsTo assess the extent to which individual working behaviour is determined by sex, age, weight and social rank, we studied the behaviours of 103 animals from eight captive colonies. We performed focal sampling and ran mixed-effects models to assess which factors explained variation in working behaviour during six ten-minute observation periods per individual.

resultsContrary to widely-held beliefs, we found that working behaviour did not decrease linearly with weight, although polynomial regressions indicated younger and medium-sized individuals worked most frequently, while high-ranking individuals worked for the shortest periods of time. Working behaviour and its relationship with individual characteristics also varied between colonies.

conclusionsWhile age- or size-based polyethisms may have some influence on working behaviour, we argue that other characteristics of the individual and colony are also important. In particular, the interactions of individual, social and environmental factors must be considered in order to understand the emergence and effectiveness of the division of labour that is so critical to many social organisms.

Indexed as

Cooperative behaviourDivision of labourDominance hierarchyEusocialEvolutionNaked mole-ratPolyethismReproductive skewSocialityWorking behaviour

Identifiers

PMID33062418
PMCPMC7531346
OpenAlexW3091268850

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.