ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2018
Self-assembly of the butterfly proboscis: the role of capillary forces.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diverse material properties and morphology of moth proboscises relates to the feeding habits of some macromoth and other lepidopteran lineages.Interface focus · 2024Article
- Wettability and morphology of proboscises interweave with hawkmoth evolutionary history.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Article
- Genetically Engineered Flagella Form Collagen-like Ordered Structures for Inducing Stem Cell Differentiation.iScience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proboscis of butterflies and moths consists of two C-shaped fibres, the galeae, which are united after the insect emerges from the pupa. We observed that proboscis self-assembly is facilitated by discharge of saliva. In contrast with vertebrate saliva, butterfly saliva is not slimy and is an almost inviscid, water-like fluid. Butterfly saliva, therefore, cannot offer any viscoelastic adhesiveness. We hypothesized that capillary forces are responsible for helping butterflies and moths pull and hold their galeae together while uniting them mechanically. Theoretical analysis supported by X-ray micro-computed tomography on columnar liquid bridges suggests that both concave and convex liquid bridges are able to pull the galeae together. Theoretical and experimental analyses of capillary forces acting on natural and artificial proboscises show that these forces are sufficiently high to hold the galeae together.
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.