↓ Skip to main content

Are mammal olfactory signals hiding right under our noses?

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Are mammal olfactory signals hiding right under our noses?
Published in
The Science of Nature, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00114-013-1054-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter James Apps

Abstract

Chemical communication via olfactory semiochemicals plays a central role in the social behaviour and reproduction of mammals, but even after four decades of research, only a few mammal semiochemicals have been chemically characterized. Expectations that mammal chemical signals are coded by quantitative relationships among multiple components have persisted since the earliest studies of mammal semiochemistry, and continue to direct research strategies. Nonetheless, the chemistry of mammal excretions and secretions and the characteristics of those semiochemicals that have been identified show that mammal semiochemicals are as likely to be single compounds as to be mixtures, and are as likely to be coded by the presence and absence of chemical compounds as by their quantities. There is very scant support for the view that mammal semiochemicals code signals as specific ratios between components, and no evidence that they depend on a Gestalt or a chemical image. Of 31 semiochemicals whose chemical composition is known, 15 have a single component and 16 are coded by presence/absence, one may depend on a ratio between two compounds and none of them are chemical images. The expectation that mammal chemical signals have multiple components underpins the use of multivariate statistical analyses of chromatographic data, but the ways in which multivariate statistics are commonly used to search for active mixtures leads to single messenger compounds and signals that are sent by the presence and absence of compounds being overlooked. Research on mammal semiochemicals needs to accommodate the possibility that simple qualitative differences are no less likely than complex quantitative differences to encode chemical signals.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 52%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 August 2019.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#1,865
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,818
of 196,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 196,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.