Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28533452›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

Fluorescence as a means of colour signal enhancement.

Justin Marshall, Sonke Johnsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Anisotropic fluorescence emission by diatoms modifies the underwater oceanic light field.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Bees, flowers and UV.Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors.

Justin MarshallQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia justin.marshall@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9006-6713
Sonke JohnsenBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-8320

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluorescence is a physico-chemical energy exchange where shorter-wavelength photons are absorbed by a molecule and are re-emitted as longer-wavelength photons. It has been suggested a means of communication in several taxa including flowers, pitcher plants, corals, algae, worms, squid, spiders, stomatopods, fish, reptiles, parrots and humans. The surface or object that the pigment molecule is part of appears to glow due to its setting rather than an actual production of light, and this may enhance both signals and, in some cases, camouflage. This review examines some known uses of fluorescence, mainly in the context of visual communication in animals, the challenge being to distinguish when fluorescence is a functional feature of biological coloration or when it is a by-product of a pigment or other molecule. In general, we conclude that most observations of fluorescence lack enough evidence to suggest they are used in visually driven behaviours.This article is part of the themed issue 'Animal coloration: production, perception, function and application'.

Indexed as

Animal CommunicationFluorescencePigmentationAnimalsColorInvertebratesVertebratesbehaviourcolourexcitation and emissionfluorescencelightvisual ecology

Identifiers

PMID28533452
PMCPMC5444056

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.