ArticleScientific reports2026
Honeycomb construction on designed foundations reveals geometry-dependent developmental pathways.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Honeycomb construction by honeybees is a classical example of collective biological structure formation, yet how ordered cell patterns develop under imposed geometric constraints remains insufficiently understood. Here, we experimentally investigated comb development by introducing 3D-printed designed foundations into an active honeybee colony and comparing conditions that differed in lattice symmetry and scale. The foundations consisted of three hexagonal lattices with nominal across-flats opening sizes of 5.0, 6.7, and 20 mm, and a square lattice with a nominal opening side length of 5.4 mm. On the small and medium hexagonal foundations, construction proceeded through local wax attachment, formation of dome-like protrusions, lateral expansion, and incorporation into a more continuous planar comb. In contrast, on the large hexagonal foundation, wax attachment was localized mainly along the raised lattice walls, and subsequent growth proceeded mainly outward from the foundation surface. On the square foundation, early wax attachment followed the imposed orthogonal boundaries, but this arrangement was not maintained during later development. Initially dominant four-sided cells progressively decreased, whereas five- and six-sided cells increased, indicating a transition from an orthogonal arrangement toward hexagonal-like mixed polygonal configurations. These results suggest that imposed geometry influences developmental pathways and coverage dynamics, while comb organization can progressively evolve toward hexagonal-like structures through local attachment, growth, and subsequent morphological reorganization.
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.