↓ Skip to main content

Remora cranial vein morphology and its functional implications for attachment

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Remora cranial vein morphology and its functional implications for attachment
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-06429-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brooke E. Flammang, Christopher P. Kenaley

Abstract

Remora fishes adhere to, and maintain long-term, reversible attachment with, surfaces of varying roughness and compliance under wetted high-shear conditions using an adhesive disc that evolved from the dorsal fin spines typical of other fishes. Evolution of this complex hierarchical structure required extensive reorganization of the skull and fin spines, but the functional role of the soft tissues of the disc are poorly understood. Here I show that remora cranial veins are highly-modified in comparison to those of other vertebrates; they are transposed anteriorly and enlarged, and lie directly ventral to the disc on the dorsum of the cranium. Ancestrally, these veins lie inside the neurocranium, in the dura ventral to the brain, and return blood from the eyes, nares, and brain to the heart. Repositioning of these vessels to lie in contact with the ventral surface of the disc lamellae implies functional importance associated with the adhesive mechanism. The position of the anterior cardinal sinus suggests that it may aid in pressurization equilibrium during attachment by acting as a hydraulic differential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 26%
Student > Master 3 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 42%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2022.
All research outputs
#3,373,972
of 25,551,063 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#28,851
of 141,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,593
of 325,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,129
of 5,726 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,551,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 141,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,726 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.