The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Behavior and the limits of genomic plasticity: power and replicability in microarray analysis of honeybee brains
Abstract
Transcription is slow relative to many post‐transcriptional processes in the brain. Using the rich system of division of labor in the honeybee ( Apis mellifera ), we found extreme differences in the extent to which behavioral occupations of different durations were associated with gene‐expression differences in the brain. Nursing and foraging, occupations lasting >1 week, were associated with significant expression differences for nearly one‐quarter of the genes tested (1208 of 5563 cDNAs tested; P < 0.01, anova ), consistent with previous results. In contrast, transitional occupations, performed for 1–2 days after nursing and before the onset of foraging, were associated with either no differences (guards vs. undertakers; 19 cDNAs, fewer than the expectation of 56 false‐positives) or few differences (comb builders vs. guards and undertakers; 248 cDNAs), but extensive differences relative to both nursing and foraging (>500 cDNAs, all contrasts). Statistical power analysis indicated that expression differences of two‐, 1.5‐ and 1.25‐fold should have been detected in 100, 92 and 37% of cases, respectively. Replication of previous results at these magnitudes was 95, 71 and 51%, with no genes showing differences in the opposite direction. These results indicate that behavioral plasticity over different time‐scales may be associated with substantial differences in the extent of genomic plasticity in the brain.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“However, behaviors are in general more ephemeral than typical cellular states in development, so we would expect that the transcriptomic correlates of behavior are correspondingly more fluid (28) than those of cells in a developmental context.”
From Behavior-related gene regulatory networks: A new level of organization in the brain (2020) · cites this paper as [28]
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
Assessing Gene Significance from cDNA Microarray Expression Data via Mixed Models
Wolfinger, R. D., Gibson, G., Wolfinger, E. D., Bennett, L., Hamadeh, H., Bushel, P., Afshari, C., & Paules, R. S. (2001) · Journal of Computational Biology · doi:10.1089/106652701753307520 · Cited by 1,117
Statistical tests for differential expression in cDNA microarray experiments
Cui, X., & Churchill, G. A. (2003) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2003-4-4-210 · Cited by 912
Lim, M. M., Wang, Z., Olazábal, D. E., Ren, X., Terwilliger, E. F., & Young, L. J. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02539 · Cited by 628
Gene Expression Profiles in the Brain Predict Behavior in Individual Honey Bees
Whitfield, C. W., Cziko, A.-M., & Robinson, G. E. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1086807 · Cited by 527
Self-citationInfluence of Gene Action Across Different Time Scales on Behavior
Ben-Shahar, Y., Robichon, A., Sokolowski, M. B., & Robinson, G. E. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069911 · Cited by 433
Self-citationPheromone-mediated gene expression in the honey bee brain
Grozinger, C. M., Sharabash, N. M., Whitfield, C. W., & Robinson, G. E. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2335884100 · Cited by 332
Self-citationMAANOVA: A Software Package for the Analysis of Spotted cDNA Microarray Experiments
Wu, H., Kerr, M. K., Cui, X., & Churchill, G. A. (2003) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-21679-0_14 · Cited by 319
Whitfield, C. W., Band, M. R., Bonaldo, M. F., Kumar, C. G., Liu, L., Pardinas, J. R., Robertson, H. M., Soares, M. B., & Robinson, G. E. (2002) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.5302 · Cited by 287
Self-citationGenomics and Integrative Analyses of Division of Labor in Honeybee Colonies
Robinson, G. E. (2002) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/342901 · Cited by 177
Self-citationBen‐Shahar, Y., Dudek, N. L., & Robinson, G. E. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.01151 · Cited by 125
Self-citationEndocrine Influences on the Organization of Insect Societies
Bloch, G., Shpigler, H. Y., Wheeler, D. E., & Robinson, G. E. (2009) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-008088783-8.00030-9 · Cited by 107
Self-citationDivision of labor between undertaker specialists and other middle-aged workers in honey bee colonies
Trumbo, S. T., Huang, Z.-Y., & Robinson, G. E. (1997) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s002650050374 · Cited by 92
Self-citationEndocrine Influences on the Organization of Insect Societies
Bloch, G., Wheeler, D. E., & Robinson, G. E. (2002) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012532104-4/50042-1 · Cited by 84
Self-citationResponse thresholds and division of labor in insect colonies
Beshers, S. N., Robinson, G. E., & Mittenthal, J. E. (1999) · Birkhäuser Basel eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-8739-7_7 · Cited by 75
Self-citationLobenhofer, E. K., Cui, X., Bennett, L., Cable, P., Merrick, B. A., Churchill, G. A., & Afshari, C. A. (2004) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1080/01926230490483324 · Cited by 68
Genotypic constraints on plasticity for corpse removal in honey bee colonies
Robinson, G. E., & Page, R. E. (1995) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.1995.0119 · Cited by 64
Self-citationBreed, M. D., Smith, T. A., & Torres, A. (1992) · Annals of the Entomological Society of America · doi:10.1093/aesa/85.5.633 · Cited by 60
Cited by
Behavior-related gene regulatory networks: A new level of organization in the brain
Sinha, S., Jones, B. M., Traniello, I. M., Bukhari, S. A., Halfon, M. S., Hofmann, H. A., Huang, S., Katz, P. S., Keagy, J., Lynch, V. J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1921625117 · Cited by 85
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cash, A. C., Whitfield, C. W., Ismail, N., & Robinson, G. E.
- Venue
- Genes, Brain and Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-271
- ISSN
- 1601-1848
- 1601-183X
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 17
- Language
- en
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.
