Cargando…
Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens
Reproductive division of labour is a hallmark of eusociality, but disentangling the underlying proximate mechanisms can be challenging. In bumblebees, workers isolated from the queen can activate their ovaries and lay haploid, male eggs. We investigated if volatile, contact, visual or behavioural cu...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27853577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160576 |
_version_ | 1782465864043331584 |
---|---|
author | Padilla, Mario Amsalem, Etya Altman, Naomi Hefetz, Abraham Grozinger, Christina M. |
author_facet | Padilla, Mario Amsalem, Etya Altman, Naomi Hefetz, Abraham Grozinger, Christina M. |
author_sort | Padilla, Mario |
collection | PubMed |
description | Reproductive division of labour is a hallmark of eusociality, but disentangling the underlying proximate mechanisms can be challenging. In bumblebees, workers isolated from the queen can activate their ovaries and lay haploid, male eggs. We investigated if volatile, contact, visual or behavioural cues produced by the queen or brood mediate reproductive dominance in Bombus impatiens. Exposure to queen-produced volatiles, brood-produced volatiles and direct contact with pupae did not reduce worker ovary activation; only direct contact with the queen could reduce ovary activation. We evaluated behaviour, physiology and gene expression patterns in workers that were reared in chambers with all stages of brood and a free queen, caged queen (where workers could contact the queen, but the queen was unable to initiate interactions) or no queen. Workers housed with a caged queen or no queen fully activated their ovaries, whereas ovary activation in workers housed with a free queen was completely inhibited. The caged queen marginally reduced worker aggression and expression of an aggression-associated gene relative to queenless workers. Thus, queen-initiated behavioural interactions appear necessary to establish reproductive dominance. Queen-produced chemical cues may function secondarily in a context-specific manner to augment behavioural cues, as reliable or honest signal. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5099002 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50990022016-11-16 Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens Padilla, Mario Amsalem, Etya Altman, Naomi Hefetz, Abraham Grozinger, Christina M. R Soc Open Sci Biology (Whole Organism) Reproductive division of labour is a hallmark of eusociality, but disentangling the underlying proximate mechanisms can be challenging. In bumblebees, workers isolated from the queen can activate their ovaries and lay haploid, male eggs. We investigated if volatile, contact, visual or behavioural cues produced by the queen or brood mediate reproductive dominance in Bombus impatiens. Exposure to queen-produced volatiles, brood-produced volatiles and direct contact with pupae did not reduce worker ovary activation; only direct contact with the queen could reduce ovary activation. We evaluated behaviour, physiology and gene expression patterns in workers that were reared in chambers with all stages of brood and a free queen, caged queen (where workers could contact the queen, but the queen was unable to initiate interactions) or no queen. Workers housed with a caged queen or no queen fully activated their ovaries, whereas ovary activation in workers housed with a free queen was completely inhibited. The caged queen marginally reduced worker aggression and expression of an aggression-associated gene relative to queenless workers. Thus, queen-initiated behavioural interactions appear necessary to establish reproductive dominance. Queen-produced chemical cues may function secondarily in a context-specific manner to augment behavioural cues, as reliable or honest signal. The Royal Society 2016-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5099002/ /pubmed/27853577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160576 Text en © 2016 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Biology (Whole Organism) Padilla, Mario Amsalem, Etya Altman, Naomi Hefetz, Abraham Grozinger, Christina M. Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title | Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title_full | Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title_fullStr | Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title_full_unstemmed | Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title_short | Chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens |
title_sort | chemical communication is not sufficient to explain reproductive inhibition in the bumblebee bombus impatiens |
topic | Biology (Whole Organism) |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099002/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27853577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160576 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT padillamario chemicalcommunicationisnotsufficienttoexplainreproductiveinhibitioninthebumblebeebombusimpatiens AT amsalemetya chemicalcommunicationisnotsufficienttoexplainreproductiveinhibitioninthebumblebeebombusimpatiens AT altmannaomi chemicalcommunicationisnotsufficienttoexplainreproductiveinhibitioninthebumblebeebombusimpatiens AT hefetzabraham chemicalcommunicationisnotsufficienttoexplainreproductiveinhibitioninthebumblebeebombusimpatiens AT grozingerchristinam chemicalcommunicationisnotsufficienttoexplainreproductiveinhibitioninthebumblebeebombusimpatiens |