Filtering by
- Creators: Arizona State University
- Creators: Haight, Kevin
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
Olfactory discrimination tasks can provide useful information about how olfaction may have evolved by demonstrating which types of compounds animals will detect and respond to. Ants discriminate between nestmates and non-nestmates by using olfaction to detect the cuticular hydrocarbons on other ants, and Camponotus floridanus have particularly clear and aggressive responses to non-nestmates. A new method of adding hydrocarbons to ants, the “Snow Globe” method was further optimized and tested on C. floridanus. It involves adding hydrocarbons and a solvent to a vial of water, vortexing it, suspending hydrocarbon droplets throughout the solution, and then dipping a narcotized ant in. It is hoped this method can evenly coat ants in hydrocarbon. Ants were treated with heptacosane (C27), nonacosane (C29), hentriacontane (C31), a mixture of C27/C29/C31, 2-methyltriacontane (2MeC30), S-3-methylhentriacontane (SMeC31), and R-3-methylhentriacontane (RMeC31). These were chosen to see how ants reacted in a nestmate recognition context to methyl-branched hydrocarbons, R and S enantiomers, and to multiple added alkanes. Behavior assays were performed on treated ants, as well as two untreated controls, a foreign ant and a nestmate ant. There were 15 replicates of each condition, using 15 different queenright colonies. The Snow Globe method successfully transfers hydrocarbons, as confirmed by solid phase microextraction (SPME) done on treated ants, and the behavior assay data shows the foreign control, SMeC31, and the mixture of C27/29/31 were all statistically significant in their differences from the native control. The multiple alkane mixture received a significant response while single alkanes did not, which supports the idea that larger variations in hydrocarbon profile are needed for an ant to be perceived as foreign. The response to SMeC31 shows C. floridanus can respond during nestmate recognition to hydrocarbons that are not naturally occurring, and it indicates the nestmate recognition process may simply be responding to any compounds not found in the colony profile and rather than detecting particular foreign compounds.
Of those families examined, the results are broadly consistent with Todaka et al. 2010, though none of the GHFs found were expressed in both termite-associated protist and non-termite-associated protist transcriptome data. This suggests that, rather than being inherited from their free-living protist ancestors, GHF genes were acquired by termite protists while within the termite gut, potentially via lateral gene transfer (LGT). For example one family, GHF10, implies a single acquisition of a bacterial xylanase into termite protists. The phylogenies from GHF5 and GHF11 each imply two distinct acquisitions in termite protist ancestors, each from bacteria. In eukaryote-dominated GHFs, GHF7 and GHF45, there are three apparent acquisitions by termite protists. Meanwhile, it appears prior reports of GHF62 in the termite gut may have been misidentified GHF43 sequences. GHF43 was the only GHF found to contain sequences from the protists not found in the termite gut. These findings generally all support the possibility termite-associated protists adapted to a lignocellulosic diet after colonization of the termite hindgut. Nonetheless, the poor resolution of GHF phylogeny and limited termite and protist sampling constrain interpretation.