Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30816149›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Biomechanical properties of fishing lines of the glowworm Arachnocampa luminosa (Diptera; Keroplatidae).

Janek von Byern, Pete Chandler, David Merritt, Wolfram Adlassnig, Ian Stringer, Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow, Alexander Kovalev, Victoria Dorrer, Simone Dimartino, Martina Marchetti-Deschmann and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Silk fibroin-based scaffolds for tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Silk Fibroin as a Functional Biomaterial for Tissue Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Janek von ByernLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria. vByern@freenet.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7243-0438
Pete ChandlerSpellbound Cave, Waitomo, New Zealand.
David MerrittThe University of Queensland, Faculty of Science, School of Biological Sciences, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Wolfram AdlassnigUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Life Science, Core Facility Cell Imaging & Ultrastructure Research, Vienna, Austria.
Ian StringerDepartment of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Victor Benno Meyer-RochowHachijojima: Research Institute of Luminous Organisms, Tokyo, Japan.
Alexander KovalevKiel University, Zoological Institute, Functional Morphology and Biomechanics, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9441-5316
Victoria DorrerVienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Technologies and Analytics, Vienna, Austria.
Simone DimartinoThe University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering, Institute for Bioengineering, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9695-1278
Martina Marchetti-DeschmannVienna University of Technology, Institute of Chemical Technologies and Analytics, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8060-7851
Stanislav GorbKiel University, Zoological Institute, Functional Morphology and Biomechanics, Kiel, Germany.
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DETU Wien · ATUniversity of Vienna · ATDepartment of Conservation · NZThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24531
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals use adhesive secretions in highly diverse ways, such as for settlement, egg anchorage, mating, active or passive defence, etc. One of the most interesting functions is the use of bioadhesives to capture prey, as the bonding has to be performed within milliseconds and often under unfavourable conditions. While much is understood about the adhesive and biomechanical properties of the threads of other hunters such as spiders, barely anything is documented about those of the New Zealand glowworm Arachnocampa luminosa. We analysed tensile properties of the fishing lines of the New Zealand glowworm Arachnocampa luminosa under natural and dry conditions and measured their adhesion energy to different surfaces. The capture system of A. luminosa is highly adapted to the prevailing conditions (13-15 °C, relative humidity of 98%) whereby the wet fishing lines only show a bonding ability at high relative humidity (>80%) with a mean adhesive energy from 20-45 N/m and a stronger adhesion to polar surfaces. Wet threads show a slightly higher breaking strain value than dried threads, whereas the tensile strength of wet threads was much lower. The analyses show that breaking stress and strain values in Arachnocampa luminosa were very low in comparison to related Arachnocampa species and spider silk threads but exhibit much higher adhesion energy values. While the mechanical differences between the threads of various Arachnocampa species might be consequence of the different sampling and handling of the threads prior to the tests, differences to spiders could be explained by habitat differences and differences in the material ultrastructure. Orb web spiders produce viscid silk consisting of β-pleated sheets, whereas Arachnocampa has cross-β-sheet crystallites within its silk. As a functional explanation, the low tear strength for A. luminosa comprises a safety mechanism and ensures the entire nest is not pulled down by prey which is too heavy.

Indexed as

AdhesivesAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaBiopolymersDipteraNew ZealandPredatory BehaviorSilkAdhesivesBiopolymersSilk

Identifiers

PMID30816149
PMCPMC6395680
OpenAlexW2915467492

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.