Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26559671›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Fast and Powerful: Biomechanics and Bite Forces of the Mandibles in the American Cockroach Periplaneta americana.

Tom Weihmann, Lars Reinhardt, Kevin Weißing, Tobias Siebert, Benjamin Wipfler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Three-dimensional kinematics of leaf-cutter ant mandibles: not all dicondylic joints are simple hinges.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A Roadmap to Reconstructing Muscle Architecture from CT Data.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

5 authors.

Tom WeihmannDept. of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lars ReinhardtScience of Motion, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.
Kevin WeißingEntomology Group, Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie mit Phyletischem Museum, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.
Tobias SiebertInstitute of Sport and Motion Science, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Benjamin WipflerEntomology Group, Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie mit Phyletischem Museum, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowing the functionality and capabilities of masticatory apparatuses is essential for the ecological classification of jawed organisms. Nevertheless insects, especially with their outstanding high species number providing an overwhelming morphological diversity, are notoriously underexplored with respect to maximum bite forces and their dependency on the mandible opening angles. Aiming for a general understanding of insect biting, we examined the generalist feeding cockroach Periplaneta americana, characterized by its primitive chewing mouth parts. We measured active isometric bite forces and passive forces caused by joint resistance over the entire mandibular range with a custom-built 2D force transducer. The opening angle of the mandibles was quantified by using a video system. With respect to the effective mechanical advantage of the mandibles and the cross-section areas, we calculated the forces exerted by the mandible closer muscles and the corresponding muscle stress values. Comparisons with the scarce data available revealed close similarities of the cockroaches' mandible closer stress values (58 N/cm2) to that of smaller specialist carnivorous ground beetles, but strikingly higher values than in larger stag beetles. In contrast to available datasets our results imply the activity of faster and slower muscle fibres, with the latter becoming active only when the animals chew on tough material which requires repetitive, hard biting. Under such circumstances the coactivity of fast and slow fibres provides a force boost which is not available during short-term activities, since long latencies prevent a specific effective employment of the slow fibres in this case.

Indexed as

Bite ForceAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaFinite Element AnalysisMandibleMasticationModels, BiologicalMuscle Fibers, SkeletalMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthPeriplanetaVideotape Recording

Identifiers

PMID26559671
PMCPMC4641686

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.