Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Honey bee neurogenomic responses to affiliative and agonistic social interactions

Shpigler, Hagai Y., Saul, Michael C., Murdoch, Emma E., Corona, Frida, Cash‐Ahmed, Amy C., Seward, Christopher H., Chandrasekaran, Sriram, Stubbs, Lisa J., Robinson, Gene E.·2019·Genes, Brain and Behavior

Abstract

Social interactions can be divided into two categories, affiliative and agonistic. How neurogenomic responses reflect these opposing valences is a central question in the biological embedding of experience. To address this question, we exposed honey bees to a queen larva, which evokes nursing, an affiliative alloparenting interaction, and measured the transcriptomic response of the mushroom body brain region at different times after exposure. Hundreds of genes were differentially expressed at distinct time points, revealing a dynamic temporal patterning of the response. Comparing these results to our previously published research on agonistic aggressive interactions, we found both shared and unique transcriptomic responses to each interaction. The commonly responding gene set was enriched for nuclear receptor signaling, the set specific to nursing was enriched for olfaction and neuron differentiation, and the set enriched for aggression was enriched for cytoskeleton, metabolism, and chromosome organization. Whole brain histone profiling after the affiliative interaction revealed few changes in chromatin accessibility, suggesting that the transcriptomic changes derive from already accessible areas of the genome. Although only one stimulus of each type was studied, we suggest that elements of the observed transcriptomic responses reflect molecular encoding of stimulus valence, thus priming individuals for future encounters. This hypothesis is supported by behavioral analyses showing that bees responding to either the affiliative or agonistic stimulus exhibited a higher probability of repeating the same behavior but a lower probability of performing the opposite behavior. These findings add to our understanding of the biological embedding at the molecular level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gbb.12509

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lorenz K, 1966, On Aggression
  2. 10.1007/s001140050110 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shpigler, H. Y., Saul, M. C., Murdoch, E. E., Corona, F., Cash‐Ahmed, A. C., Seward, C. H., Chandrasekaran, S., Stubbs, L. J., & Robinson, G. E.
Affiliations
  • Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign (UIUC) Urbana Illinois
  • Department of Biomedical Engineering University of Michigan Michigan
Venue
Genes, Brain and Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-04
Volume
18
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1601-1848
  • 1601-183X
Cited by
29
References
67
Language
en
Funders
Simons Foundation (SFLife 291812)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.