Filtering by
- Status: Published
Insect pheromones are crucial for survival and reproduction because they influence insect behavior, communication, and interactions within and outside the colony. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) have one of the most complex pheromonal communication systems. One pheromone, known as Queen Mandibular Pheromone (QMP), is released by the queen bee to regulate physiology, behavior, and gene expression in the female worker caste. The pheromone acts as a signal of queen presence that suppresses worker reproduction. In the absence of reproduction, young workers focus on taking care of the queen and larvae, known as nurse tasks, while older workers forage. In nurse bees, QMP has fundamental physiological impacts, including increasing abdominal lipid stores and increasing the protein content of hypopharyngeal glands (HPG). The HPG are worker-specific glands that can synthesize royal jelly used in colony nourishment. In workers, larger HPG signifies the ability to secrete royal jelly, while shrunken glands are characteristic of foragers that do not make jelly. While it is known that QMP increases abdominal lipid stores, the underlying mechanism is unclear: Does the pheromone simply make workers consume more pollen which provides lipids and protein, or does QMP also increase lipogenesis? In this study, I measured abdominal lipogenesis as fatty acid synthase (FAS) activity and monitored abdominal protein content and HPG size in caged, nurse-aged worker bees. In cages, workers were exposed to QMP or not, and they were provided with a lipid less diet in a full factorial design experiment. I found that QMP did not influence abdominal FAS activity or protein, but significantly increased HPG size. The data also revealed a significant positive correlation between abdominal protein and HPG size. My results do not support the idea that QMP modulates lipogenesis in worker bees, but my data can be interpreted to reflect that QMP mobilizes abdominal protein for the production of jelly in the HPG. This finding is in line with a previous study revealing a role of honey bee Brood Pheromone in mobilization of a major protein used in jelly production. Overall, my results support a fundamental role of QMP in worker metabolic processes associated with colony nourishment.
Maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the United States continues to rise, with a wide range of contributing factors such as mental illness, cardiovascular disease and systemic inequality. This metastudy provides a holistic view of the research that has been published on the issue of U.S. maternal healthcare from 2000-2022. The patterns of publications on specific topics over time can tell us what is perceived as a current major cause by physicians, public leaders, researchers, and the public. A deeper dive into systemic inequality as a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality highlights it as a major contributor to these high rates, but that progress is slowly being made through the implementation of detection and prevention tactics, as well as accessible prenatal programs and care.
Vertebrate studies suggest that surviving anoxia requires the maintenance of ATP despite the loss of aerobic metabolism in a manner that prevents a disruption of ionic homeostasis. Instead, the abilities to maintain a hypometabolic state with low ATP and tolerate large disturbances in ionic status appear to contribute to the higher anoxia tolerance of adults. Furthermore, metabolomics experiments support this notion by showing that larvae had higher metabolic rates during the initial 30 min of anoxia and that protective metabolites were upregulated in adults but not larvae. Lastly, I investigated the genetic variation in anoxia tolerance using a genome wide association study (GWAS) to identify target genes associated with anoxia tolerance. Results from the GWAS also suggest mechanisms related to protection from ionic and oxidative stress, in addition to a protective role for immune function.
explained by natural selection acting on traits that persisted "for the good of the group" prompted a series of debates about group-level selection and the effectiveness with which natural selection could act at or across multiple levels of biological organization. For some this topic remains contentious, while others consider the debate settled, even while disagreeing about when and how resolution occurred, raising the question: "Why have these debates continued?"
Here I explore the biology, history, and philosophy of the possibility of natural selection operating at levels of biological organization other than the organism by focusing on debates about group-level selection that have occurred since the 1960s. In particular, I use experimental, historical, and synthetic methods to review how the debates have changed, and whether different uses of the same words and concepts can lead to different interpretations of the same experimental data.
I begin with the results of a group-selection experiment I conducted using the parasitoid wasp Nasonia, and discuss how the interpretation depends on how one conceives of and defines a "group." Then I review the history of the group selection controversy and argue that this history is best interpreted as multiple, interrelated debates rather than a single continuous debate. Furthermore, I show how the aspects of these debates that have changed the most are related to theoretical content and empirical data, while disputes related to methods remain largely unchanged. Synthesizing this material, I distinguish four different "approaches" to the study of multilevel selection based on the questions and methods used by researchers, and I use the results of the Nasonia experiment to discuss how each approach can lead to different interpretations of the same experimental data. I argue that this realization can help to explain why debates about group and multilevel selection have persisted for nearly sixty years. Finally, the conclusions of this dissertation apply beyond evolutionary biology by providing an illustration of how key concepts can change over time, and how failing to appreciate this fact can lead to ongoing controversy within a scientific field.