Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409651›Full record

ReviewCell and tissue research2021

Olfaction of aquatic amniotes.

Takushi Kishida

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cell and tissue research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Tadpoles and frogs have a different sense of taste.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. How the evolution of air breathing shaped hippocampal function.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

1 author.

Takushi KishidaMuseum of Natural and Environmental History, Shizuoka, Oya 5762, Suruga, Shizuoka, 422-8017, Japan. taku.kishida@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2220-7892

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Amniotes originated on land, but aquatic/amphibious groups emerged multiple times independently in amniotes. On becoming aquatic, species with different phylogenetic backgrounds and body plans have to adapt themselves to handle similar problems inflicted by their new environment, and this makes aquatic adaptation of amniotes one of the greatest natural experiments. Particularly, evolution of the sense of smell upon aquatic adaptation is of great interest because receptors required for underwater olfaction differ remarkably from those for terrestrial olfaction. Here, I review the olfactory capabilities of aquatic/amphibious amniotes, especially those of cetaceans and sea snakes. Most aquatic/amphibious amniotes show reduced olfactory organs, receptor gene repertoires, and olfactory capabilities. Remarkably, cetaceans and sea snakes show extreme examples: cetaceans have lost the vomeronasal system, and furthermore, toothed whales have lost all of their olfactory nervous systems. Baleen whales can smell in the air, but their olfactory capability is limited. Fully aquatic sea snakes have lost the main olfactory system but they retain the vomeronasal system for sensing underwater. Amphibious species show an intermediate status between terrestrial and aquatic species, implying their importance on understanding the process of aquatic adaptation. The olfactory capabilities of aquatic amniotes are diverse, reflecting their diverse phylogenetic backgrounds and ecology.

Indexed as

AnimalsFishesSmellAquatic adaptationCetaceaDegenerationEvolutionSea snake

Identifiers

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.