Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21177681›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2011

The origin and dynamic evolution of chemical information transfer.

Sandra Steiger, Thomas Schmitt, H Martin Schaefer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ecology and evolution of pyrazines in insects.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Proteomics of the Dark-Ventral-Patch Sexual Signal in Male Red Deer.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sandra SteigerSchool of Biological Sciences, Behavior, Ecology, Evolution and Systematics Section, Illinois State University, Normal Il 61790-4120, USA. ssteige@ilstu.edu
Thomas Schmitt
H Martin Schaefer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although chemical communication is the most widespread form of communication, its evolution and diversity are not well understood. By integrating studies of a wide range of terrestrial plants and animals, we show that many chemicals are emitted, which can unintentionally provide information (cues) and, therefore, act as direct precursors for the evolution of intentional communication (signals). Depending on the content, design and the original function of the cue, there are predictable ways that selection can enhance the communicative function of chemicals. We review recent progress on how efficacy-based selection by receivers leads to distinct evolutionary trajectories of chemical communication. Because the original function of a cue may channel but also constrain the evolution of functional communication, we show that a broad perspective on multiple selective pressures acting upon chemicals provides important insights into the origin and dynamic evolution of chemical information transfer. Finally, we argue that integrating chemical ecology into communication theory may significantly enhance our understanding of the evolution, the design and the content of signals in general.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionSelection, GeneticAnimal CommunicationAnimalsEvolution, MolecularInsectaMammalsPheromonesPlant Physiological PhenomenaPheromones

Identifiers

PMID21177681
PMCPMC3049038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.