ArticleJournal of anatomy2021
Digital dissection of the head of the frogs Calyptocephalella gayi and Leptodactylus pentadactylus with emphasis on the feeding apparatus.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The SmARTR pipeline: A modular workflow for the cinematic rendering of 3D scientific imaging data.iScience · 2024Article
- A spectacular new species ofPeerJ · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micro-computed tomography (microCT) of small animals has led to a more detailed and more accurate three-dimensional (3D) view on different anatomical structures in the last years. Here, we present the cranial anatomy of two frog species providing descriptions of bone structures and soft tissues of the feeding apparatus with comments to possible relations to habitat and feeding ecology. Calyptocephalella gayi, known for its aquatic lifestyle, is not restricted to aquatic feeding but also feeds terrestrially using lingual prehension. This called for a detailed investigation of the morphology of its feeding apparatus and a comparison to a fully terrestrial species that is known to feed by lingual prehension such as Leptodactylus pentadactylus. These two frog species are of similar size, feed on similar diet but within different main habitats. MicroCT scans of both species were conducted in order to reconstruct the complete anatomical condition of the whole feeding apparatus for the first time. Differences in this regard are evident in the tongue musculature, which in L. pentadactylus is more massively built and with a broader interdigitating area of the two main muscles, the protractor musculus genioglossus and the retractor musculus hyoglossus. In contrast, the hyoid retractor (m. sternohyoideus) is more massive in the aquatic species C. gayi. Moreover, due to the different skull morphology, the origins of two of the five musculi adductores vary between the species. This study brings new insights into the relation of the anatomy of the feeding apparatus to the preferred feeding method via 3D imaging techniques. Contrary to the terrestrially feeding L. pentadactylus, the skeletal and muscular adaptations of the aquatic species C. gayi provide a clear picture of necessities prescribed by the habitat. Nevertheless, by keeping a certain amount of flexibility of the design of its feeding apparatus, C. gayi is able to employ various methods of feeding.
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.