Back

Molecular analyses of individual variation in honey bee sociability

Traniello, I. M.; Avalos, A.; Gachomba, M. J. M.; Gernat, T.; Chen, Z.; Cash-Ahmed, A. C.; Hamilton, A. R.; Cook, J. L.; Robinson, G. E.

2025-02-11 genomics
10.1101/2024.12.22.629994 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Individual variation in sociability is a central feature of every society. This includes honey bees, with some individuals well-connected and sociable, and others at the periphery of their colonys social network. However, the genetic and molecular bases of sociability are poorly understood. Trophallaxis - a behavior involving sharing liquid with nutritional and signaling properties - comprises a social interaction and a proxy for sociability in honey bee colonies: more sociable bees engage in more trophallaxis. Here we identify genetic and molecular mechanisms of trophallaxis-based sociability by combining genome sequencing, brain transcriptomics, and automated behavioral tracking. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified 18 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with variation in sociability. Several SNPs were localized to genes previously associated with sociability in other species, including in the context of human autism, suggesting shared molecular mechanisms of sociability. Variation in sociability also was linked to differential brain gene expression, particularly genes associated with neural signaling and development. Using comparative genomic and transcriptomic approaches, we also detected evidence for divergent mechanisms underpinning sociability across species, including those related to reward sensitivity and encounter probability. These results highlight both potential evolutionary conservation of the molecular roots of sociability and points of divergence.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.