Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34940500›Full record

ReviewJournal of developmental biology2021

At What Cost? Trade-Offs and Influences on Energetic Investment in Tail Regeneration in Lizards Following Autotomy.

James I Barr, Catherine A Boisvert, Philip W Bateman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of developmental biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

James I BarrSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.
Catherine A BoisvertSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0618-7270
Philip W BatemanSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3036-5479

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caudal autotomy, the ability to shed a portion of the tail, is a widespread defence strategy among lizards. Following caudal autotomy, and during regeneration, lizards face both short- and long-term costs associated with the physical loss of the tail and the energy required for regeneration. As such, the speed at which the individual regenerates its tail (regeneration rate) should reflect the fitness priorities of the individual. However, multiple factors influence the regeneration rate in lizards, making inter-specific comparisons difficult and hindering broader scale investigations. We review regeneration rates for lizards and tuatara from the published literature, discuss how species' fitness priorities and regeneration rates are influenced by specific, life history and environmental factors, and provide recommendations for future research. Regeneration rates varied extensively (0-4.3 mm/day) across the 56 species from 14 family groups. Species-specific factors, influencing regeneration rates, varied based on the type of fracture plane, age, sex, reproductive season, and longevity. Environmental factors including temperature, photoperiod, nutrition, and stress also affected regeneration rates, as did the method of autotomy induction, and the position of the tail also influenced regeneration rates for lizards. Additionally, regeneration could alter an individual's behaviour, growth, and reproductive output, but this varied depending on the species.

Indexed as

caudal autotomyfracture planegrowthlizardregenerationreproductiontrade-off

Identifiers

PMID34940500
PMCPMC8709428

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.