Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24824020›Full record

ReviewMarine drugs2014

Cephalopod ink: production, chemistry, functions and applications.

Charles D Derby

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Marine drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
22.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Insights into Common Octopus (Marine drugs · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles D DerbyNeuroscience Institute and Department of Biology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5030, Atlanta, GA 30302-5030, USA. cderby@gsu.edu.
Georgia State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most distinctive and defining features of coleoid cephalopods-squid, cuttlefish and octopus-is their inking behavior. Their ink, which is blackened by melanin, but also contains other constituents, has been used by humans in various ways for millennia. This review summarizes our current knowledge of cephalopod ink. Topics include: (1) the production of ink, including the functional organization of the ink sac and funnel organ that produce it; (2) the chemical components of ink, with a focus on the best known of these-melanin and the biochemical pathways involved in its production; (3) the neuroecology of the use of ink in predator-prey interactions by cephalopods in their natural environment; and (4) the use of cephalopod ink by humans, including in the development of drugs for biomedical applications and other chemicals for industrial and other commercial applications. As is hopefully evident from this review, much is known about cephalopod ink and inking, yet more striking is how little we know. Towards closing that gap, future directions in research on cephalopod inking are suggested.

Indexed as

InkAnimalsCephalopodaExocrine GlandsHumansMelaninsPredatory BehaviorMelanins

Identifiers

PMID24824020
PMCPMC4052311
OpenAlexW1976407414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.