| Title |
Spider Pheromones – a Structural Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Chemical Ecology, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10886-012-0231-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Schulz |
| Abstract |
Spiders use pheromones for sexual communication, as do other animals such as insects. Nevertheless, knowledge about their chemical structure, function, and biosynthesis is only now being unraveled. Many studies have shown the existence of spider pheromones, but the responsible compounds have been elucidated in only a few cases. This review focuses on a structural approach because we need to know the involved chemistry if we are to understand fully the function of a pheromonal communication system. Pheromones from members of the spider families Pholcidae, Araneidae, Linyphiidae, Agenelidae, and Ctenidae are currently being identified and will be discussed in this review. Some of these compounds belong to compound classes not known from other arthropod pheromones, such as citric acid derivatives or acylated amino acids, whereas others originate from more common fatty acid metabolism. Their putative biosynthesis, their function, and the identification methods used will be discussed. Furthermore, other semiochemicals and the chemistry of apolar surface lipids that potentially might be used by spiders for communication are described briefly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,160,693
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#1,580
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,440
of 284,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Chemical Ecology
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 284,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.