| Literature DB >> 19262683 |
Jelle S van Zweden1, Jürgen Heinze, Jacobus J Boomsma, Patrizia d'Ettorre.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experiments under controlled laboratory conditions can produce decisive evidence for testing biological hypotheses, provided they are representative of the more complex natural conditions. However, whether this requirement is fulfilled is seldom tested explicitly. Here we provide a lab/field comparison to investigate the identity of an egg-marking signal of ant queens. Our study was based on ant workers resolving conflict over male production by destroying each other's eggs, but leaving queen eggs unharmed. For this, the workers need a proximate cue to discriminate between the two egg types. Earlier correlative evidence indicated that, in the ant Pachycondyla inversa, the hydrocarbon 3,11-dimethylheptacosane (3,11-diMeC(27)) is more abundant on the surface of queen-laid eggs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19262683 PMCID: PMC2648039 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004718
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The effect of 3,11-diMeC27 on the acceptance of eggs in discriminator colonies and on the overall chemical profile.
(A) A worker of Pachycondyla inversa carrying eggs. (Photo by M.A. Fürst and J.S. van Zweden). (B) The average acceptance rates in discriminator colonies (±S.E.) of sham-treated worker-laid eggs (WLE), worker-laid eggs treated with 3,11-diMeC27 (TWLE), and sham-treated queen-laid eggs (QLE) in lab and field colonies; * indicates p<0.05 (GLZ, see text). (C) A typical hydrocarbon profile of a Pachycondyla inversa egg: the 19 compounds marked with an asterisk were used in PCA models (see Methods); labels and compounds correspond to those in a previous study [17]: 2 = C25, 3 = unknown, 4 = 11-,13-MeC25, 5 = 5-MeC25, 6 = 3-MeC25, 7 = C26, 8 = 3,9-diMeC25, 9 = 10-,11-,12-MeC26, 10 = 6-MeC26, 11 = 4-MeC26, 12 = 2-MeC26, 13 = 3-MeC26, 14 = unknown, 15 = C27, 16 = 2,11-diMeC26, 17 = 9-,11-,13-MeC27, 18 = 7-MeC27, 19 = 5-MeC27, 20 = 9,13-diMeC27, 21 = 3-MeC27, 22 = 5,9-diMeC27, 23 = C28, 24 = 3,11-diMeC27, 25 = 10-,11-,12-,13-,14-MeC28, 26 = 6-MeC28, 27 = C29, 28 = 11-,13-,15-MeC29, 29 = 11,15-diMeC29, 30 = 3-MeC29. (D,E) Plots of the first two principal components showing the chemical similarity of the QLE and WLE and the predicted position of the TWLE.
Figure 2The overall egg surface hydrocarbon analyses.
(A) A plot of the first two principal components showing the overall chemical similarity of queen-laid eggs (QLE) and worker-laid eggs (WLE) in both lab and field colonies. (B) The mean weighted retention times (±95% c.l.) of QLE and WLE in field and lab colonies. Different letters indicate significant differences between groups (p<0.01, ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons of least square means, see text).