ArticlePLoS biology2025
Incompatibility between two major innovations shaped the diversification of fish feeding mechanisms.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. 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.
- Beyond mammals: the evolution of chewing and other forms of oropharyngeal food processing in vertebrates.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Functional trade-offs and innovation shape the adaptive landscape of aquatic mammal feeding.iScience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Innovations often shape the trajectory of macroevolution, yet their effects are usually considered independently, thus ignoring the functional and evolutionary interactions between them. Two innovations that have underpinned the ecological and evolutionary success of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) are large teeth and highly protrusible jaws, which independently expanded the diversity of prey capture strategies. Here, we explore the functional relationship between these innovations across actinopterygians using high-speed videography and phylogenetic comparative methods. We find that these two innovations are functionally and evolutionarily incompatible because there is an overarching tradeoff between jaw protrusion and tooth size. Having large teeth decreases the kinematic diversity of prey capture by restricting species to overtake prey predominantly by swimming, while highly protrusible jaws are only found in species with small teeth. The space within tooth-bearing bones may impose this constraint, by limiting the maximum tooth size of species with gracile jaws adapted for high mobility and jaw protrusion. Nevertheless, some species break this constraint on tooth size through novel adaptations that accommodate exceptionally large teeth, unlocking new feeding modes which may have expanded the nature of aquatic feeding and influenced the ecosystems themselves. Although both high jaw protrusion and large teeth separately expanded prey capture strategies in fishes, they are generally not found in combination and are evolutionarily incompatible.
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.