ArticleScientific reports2021
Molecular underpinnings of division of labour among workers in a socially complex termite.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome Evolution in Social Insects.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- Sex-specific division of labor in termites is linked to differential brain architecture and foraging gene expression.iScience · 2026Article
- Convergent evolution of a conserved molecular network underlies parenting and sociality.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Changes of division of labour along the eusociality spectrum in termites, with comparisons to multicellularity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Evolution of a Cockroach Allergen into the Major Protein of Termite Royal Jelly.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Resource sharing is sufficient for the emergence of division of labour.Nature communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Division of labour characterizes all major evolutionary transitions, such as the evolution of eukaryotic cells or multicellular organisms. Social insects are characterized by reproductive division of labour, with one or a few reproducing individuals (queens) and many non-reproducing nestmates (workers) forming a colony. Among the workers, further division of labour can occur with different individuals performing different tasks such as foraging, brood care or building. While mechanisms underlying task division are intensively studied in social Hymenoptera, less is known for termites, which independently evolved eusociality. We investigated molecular mechanisms underlying task division in termite workers to test for communality with social Hymenoptera. We compared similar-aged foraging workers with builders of the fungus-growing termite Macrotermes bellicosus using transcriptomes, endocrine measures and estimators of physiological condition. Based on results for social Hymenoptera and theory, we tested the hypotheses that (i) foragers are in worse physiological conditions than builders, (ii) builders are more similar in their gene expression profile to queens than foragers are, and (iii) builders invest more in anti-ageing mechanism than foragers. Our results support all three hypotheses. We found storage proteins to underlie task division of these similar-aged termite workers and these genes also characterize reproductive division of labour between queens and workers. This implies a co-option of nutrient-based pathways to regulate division of labour across lineages of termites and social Hymenoptera, which are separated by more than 133 million years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.