ArticleJournal of anatomy2016
Patterns of orofacial clefting in the facial morphology of bats: a possible naturally occurring model of cleft palate.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the Maxillofacial Development of Mice, Mus musculus.Journal of morphology · 2025Article
- Prenatal growth patterns of the upper jaw complex with implications for laryngeal echolocation in bats.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Developmental origin underlies evolutionary rate variation across the placental skull.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Insights into the formation and diversification of a novel chiropteran wing membrane from embryonic development.BMC biology · 2023Article
- Dietary Diversification and Specialization in Neotropical Bats Facilitated by Early Molecular Evolution.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Making a bat: The developmental basis of bat evolution.Genetics and molecular biology · 2021Article
- Contrasting patterns of RUNX2 repeat variations are associated with palate shape in phyllostomid bats and New World primates.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Creating diversity in mammalian facial morphology: a review of potential developmental mechanisms.EvoDevo · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A normal feature of the facial anatomy of many species of bat is the presence of bony discontinuities or clefts, which bear a remarkable similarity to orofacial clefts that occur in humans as a congenital pathology. These clefts occur in two forms: a midline cleft between the two premaxillae (analogous to the rare midline craniofacial clefts in humans) and bilateral paramedian clefts between the premaxilla and the maxillae (analogous to the typical cleft lip and palate in humans). Here, we describe the distribution of orofacial clefting across major bat clades, exploring the relationship of the different patterns of clefting to feeding mode, development of the vomeronasal organ, development of the nasolacrimal duct and mode of emission of the echolocation call in different bat groups. We also present the results of detailed radiographic and soft tissue dissections of representative examples of the two types of cleft. The midline cleft has arisen independently multiple times in bat phylogeny, whereas the paramedian cleft has arisen once and is a synapomorphy uniting the Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae. In all cases examined, the bony cleft is filled in by a robust fibrous membrane, continuous with the periosteum of the margins of the cleft. In the paramedian clefts, this membrane splits to enclose the premaxilla but forms a loose fold laterally between the premaxilla and maxilla, allowing the premaxilla and nose-leaf to pivot dorsoventrally in the sagittal plane under the action of facial muscles attached to the nasal cartilages. It is possible that this is a specific adaptation for echolocation and/or aerial insectivory. Given the shared embryological location of orofacial clefts in bats and humans, it is likely that aspects of the developmental control networks that produce cleft lip and palate in humans may also be implicated in the formation of these clefts as a normal feature in some bats. A better understanding of craniofacial development in bats with and without clefts may therefore suggest avenues for research into abnormal craniofacial development in humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.