Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35830587›Full record

ArticleJournal of morphology2022

No news from old drawings? Stomach anatomy in muroid rodents in relation to body size and ecology.

Natalie Steiner, Marcus Clauss, Louise F Martin, Corina Imper, Carlo Meloro, Maria J Duque-Correa

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of morphology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Teeth and the gastrointestinal tract in mammals: when 1 + 1 = 3.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Natalie SteinerClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5057-1173
Marcus ClaussClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-6207
Louise F MartinClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Corina ImperClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Carlo MeloroResearch Centre in Evolutionary Anthropology and Palaeoecology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Maria J Duque-CorreaClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHLiverpool John Moores University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muroid rodents mostly have a complex stomach: one part is lined with a cornified (nonglandular) epithelium, referred to as a "forestomach", whereas the rest is lined with glandular epithelium. Numerous functions for the forestomach have been proposed. We collated a catalog of anatomical depictions of the stomach of 174 muroid species from which the respective nonglandular and glandular areas could be digitally measured, yielding a "stomach ratio" (nonglandular:glandular area) as a scale-independent variable. Stomach ratios ranged from 0.13 to 20.15, and the coefficient of intraspecific variation if more than one picture was available for a species averaged at 29.7% (±21.5). We tested relationships of the ratio with body mass and various anatomical and ecological variables, including diet. There was a consistent phylogenetic signal, suggesting that closely related species share a similar anatomy. Apart from classifying stomachs into hemiglandular and discoglandular, no anatomical or ecological measure showed a consistent relationship to the stomach ratio. In particular, irrespective of statistical method or the source of dietary information, dietary proxies did not significantly correlate with the stomach ratio, except for a trend towards significance for invertivory (insectivory). Yet, even this relationship was not convincing: whereas highly insectivorous species had high but no low stomach ratios, herbivorous species had both low and high stomach ratios. Thus, the statistical effect is not due to a systematic increase in the relative forestomach size with invertivory. The most plausible hypotheses so far associate the muroid forestomach and its microbiome with a generic protective role against microbial or fungal toxins and diseases, without evident correlates of a peculiar need for this function under specific ecological conditions. Yet, this function remains to be confirmed. While providing a catalog of published depictions and hypotheses, this study highlights that the function of the muroid rodent forestomach remains enigmatic to date.

Indexed as

RodentiaStomachAnimalsBody SizeEpitheliumPhylogenyforestomachgastrointestinal tractMyomorphaRodentia

Identifiers

PMID35830587
PMCPMC9543737
OpenAlexW4285086105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.