ArticlePloS one2016
Characterization of the Fishing Lines in Titiwai (=Arachnocampa luminosa Skuse, 1890) from New Zealand and Australia.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Bio-based and bio-inspired adhesives from animals and plants for biomedical applications.Materials today. Bio · 2022Review
- RNA-Seq analysis of the blue light-emitting Orfelia fultoni (Diptera: Keroplatidae) suggest photoecological adaptations at the molecular level.Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part D, Genomics & proteomics · 2021Article
- Nanoscale Material Heterogeneity of Glowworm Capture Threads Revealed by AFM.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biomechanical properties of fishing lines of the glowworm Arachnocampa luminosa (Diptera; Keroplatidae).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Chemical characterization of the adhesive secretions of the salamander Plethodon shermani (Caudata, Plethodontidae).Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Animals use adhesive secretions in a plethora of ways, either for attachment, egg anchorage, mating or as either active or passive defence. The most interesting function, however, is the use of adhesive threads to capture prey, as the bonding must be performed within milliseconds and under unsuitable conditions (movement of prey, variable environmental conditions, unfavourable attack angle, etc.) to be nonetheless successful. In the following study a detailed characterization of the prey capture system of the world-renowned glowworm group Arachnocampa from the macroscopic to the ultrastructural level is performed. The data reveal that the adhesive droplets consist mostly of water and display hygroscopic properties at varying humidity levels. The droplet core of Arachnocampa luminosa includes a certain amount of the elements sodium, sulphur and potassium (beside carbon, oxygen and nitrogen), while a different element composition is found in the two related species A. richardsae and A. tasmaniensis. Evidence for lipids, carbohydrates and proteins was negative on the histochemical level, however X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy confirm the presence of peptides within the droplet content. Different to earlier assumptions, the present study indicates that rather than oxalic acid, urea or uric acid are present in the adhesive droplets, presumably originating from the gut. Comparing the capture system in Arachnocampa with those of orb-spiders, large differences appear not only regarding the silky threads, but also, in the composition, hygroscopic properties and size of the mucous droplets.
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.