Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738633›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Fear of mating out (FOMO): voyeurism does not increase mating propensity in fruit flies.

Regina Vega-Trejo, Krish Sanghvi, Biliana Todorova, Irem Sepil, Eleanor Bath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Regina Vega-TrejoDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK. reginavegatrejo@gmail.com.
Krish SanghviDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK.
Biliana TodorovaDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK.
Irem SepilDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK.
Eleanor BathDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/V001256/1Royal Society DHF\R1\211084Wellcome BRR00060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mate availability and social information can influence mating behaviour in both males and females. Social information obtained from conspecifics can influence mate choice, particularly shown by studies on mate choice copying. However, the role of directly observing conspecific mating on mating behaviour has been less explored. As such, whether conspecifics are copulating or not could inform 'observers' about the availability of mates, or even stimulate observers to mate themselves. Using Drosophila melanogaster, we tested whether exposure to the visual cue of a mating pair would increase the mating propensity of an observer pair (i.e., voyeur). We followed a factorial design where a male-female pair (voyeur flies) were placed together with or without visual access to another pair of flies (who were either mating or not mating). We found no evidence that mating latency or duration of mating were affected by whether voyeurs had visual access to a mating or non-mating pair. These results could be due to biological factors (e.g., use of other non-visual cues by flies to acquire information related to sex), or methodological limitations of our study (e.g., flies unable to watch other pairs). Generally, our results suggest that fruit flies do not use visual cues from conspecifics mating to adjust their own mating latency or mating duration.

Indexed as

Drosophila melanogasterSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsCuesFearFemaleMaleMating Preference, AnimalBehavioural plasticityFruit fliesMate choiceSocial cues

Identifiers

PMID39738633
PMCPMC11685763

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.