Filtering by
- All Subjects: Biology
Much is still unknown about dominance hierarchies. Many different species form dominance hierarchies and each species have very different ways of forming these hierarchies. Some engage in various different dominance interactions to establish a dominant position. This experiment aims to use the ant species, Harpegnathos saltator, as a model to explore what sets dominant individuals, or gamergates in this case, apart from non-dominant individuals, or non-gamergates. H. saltator ants perform various different behaviors such as dueling, which is a mutually beneficial behavior, dominance biting, which is an aggressive behavior, and policing which is used to bring down those who are dominant. These behaviors can be used to study the importance of initiation and aggression in hierarchy formation. This experiment will explore how aggression through dominance biting, duel initiation, group size, and time period affect the formation of gamergates. To do so, socially unstable colonies of 15, 30, and 60 ants were video recorded for days until gamergates were established. Then, from the recordings, a period of high activity was selected and observed for dueling, duel initiation, dominance biting, dominance bite downs, and policing. The results showed that gamergates tended to perform dominance biting and dominance bite downs far more than non-gamergates during the period of high activity, but not as clearly with duelling and duel initiations. It was inconclusive whether or not the combination of both dueling and dominance biting was what set gamergates apart from non gamergates as different groups showed different results. Gamergates performed visibly more dominance bite downs than non-gamergates, so aggression may be important in setting gamergates apart from non-gamergates. In terms of group size, the smallest group had the least number of gamergates and the least activity, and the medium and large group had a similar number of gamergates and activity.
Three approaches were used for the characterization of these suppressors. The first approach focused on side chain specificity. The results showed that certain suppressor sites prefer a particular side chain property, such as size, to overcome the F610A defect. The second approach focused on the effects of efflux pump inhibitors. The results showed that though the suppressor residues were able to overcome the intrinsic defect of F610A, they were unable to overcome the extrinsic defect caused by the efflux pump inhibitors. This showed that the mechanism by which F610A imposes its effect on AcrB function is different than that of the efflux pump inhibitors. The final approach was to determine whether suppressors mapping in the periplasmic and trans-membrane domains act by the same or different mechanisms. The results showed both overlapping and distinct mechanisms of suppression.
To conclude, these approaches have provided a deeper understanding of the mechanisms by which novel suppressor residues of AcrB overcome the functional defect of the drug binding domain alteration, F610A.