| Title |
The hidden teeth of sloths: evolutionary vestiges and the development of a simplified dentition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep27763 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lionel Hautier, Helder Gomes Rodrigues, Guillaume Billet, Robert J. Asher |
| Abstract |
Xenarthrans are unique among mammals in retaining simplified teeth that are rootless and homodont, which makes it difficult to determine dental homologies. We apply computerized tomography to prenatal developmental series of extant sloths, Bradypus and Choloepus, to further elucidate the patterns of morphological variation in their dentition. We also propose new criteria based on sequences of dental mineralization, and the presence of vestigial teeth, to distinguish between caniniforms and postcaniniforms. We report for the first time the presence of vestigial incisors in Bradypus. We also show the presence of a vestigial tooth in front of the lower caniniform in both extant sloth genera and the existence of two generations for the upper caniniform in Choloepus. The study of their sequence of mineralization indicates that the lower and upper caniniform teeth are not homologous in sloths, and suggests that upper caniniforms are not homologous between the two extant sloth genera. Our results show that assessing the developmental processes and functional constraints remains crucial to understand the dental variations observed in sloths, and more generally, tooth class homology issues in mammals. Applied to the tooth row of all extinct sloths, these developmental data illuminate a potentially ancestral dental formula for sloths. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 20% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 2% |
| Thailand | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 78% |
| Scientists | 9 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 29 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 14% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,010,577
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#10,445
of 141,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,120
of 369,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#274
of 3,668 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 141,892 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 369,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,668 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.