ArticleBiology letters2022
Trade-offs between cost of ingestion and rate of intake drive defensive toxin use.
Article in Biology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ingestion of the potent neurotoxin epibatidine does not compromise locomotion or behavior in the poison frogbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Passive accumulation of alkaloids in inconspicuously colored frogs refines the evolutionary paradigm of acquired chemical defenses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Where Does All the Poison Go? Investigating Toxicokinetics of Newt (Taricha) Tetrodotoxin (TTX) in Garter Snakes (Thamnophis).Journal of chemical ecology · 2024Article
- Defence mitigation by predators of chemically defended prey integrated over the predation sequence and across biological levels with a focus on cardiotonic steroids.Royal Society open science · 2022Review
- Trade-offs between cost of ingestion and rate of intake drive defensive toxin use.Biology letters · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals that ingest toxins can become unpalatable and even toxic to predators and parasites through toxin sequestration. Because most animals rapidly eliminate toxins to survive their ingestion, it is unclear how populations transition from susceptibility and toxin elimination to tolerance and accumulation as chemical defence emerges. Studies of chemical defence have generally focused on species with active toxin sequestration and target-site insensitivity mutations or toxin-binding proteins that permit survival without necessitating toxin elimination. Here, we investigate whether animals that presumably rely on toxin elimination for survival can use ingested toxins for defence. We use the A4 and A3
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.