↓ Skip to main content

Insight into the neuroendocrine basis of signal evolution: a case study in foot-flagging frogs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Insight into the neuroendocrine basis of signal evolution: a case study in foot-flagging frogs
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00359-017-1218-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa A. Mangiamele, Matthew J. Fuxjager

Abstract

A hallmark of sexual selection is the evolution of elaborate male sexual signals. Yet, how the physiology of an animal changes to support a new or modified signal is a question that has remained largely unanswered. Androgens are important in regulating male reproductive behavior, therefore, selection for particular signals may drive the evolution of increased androgenic sensitivity in the neuro-motor systems underlying their production. Studies of the neuroendocrine mechanisms of anuran sexual signaling provide evidence to support this idea. Here, we highlight two such cases: first, a large body of work in Xenopus frogs demonstrates that sexually dimorphic androgen receptor (AR) expression in the laryngeal nerves and muscles underlies sexually dimorphic vocal behavior, and second, our own work showing that the recent evolution of a hind limb signal (known as the "foot flag") in Staurois parvus is accompanied by a dramatic increase in androgenic sensitivity of the thigh muscles that control limb movement. Together, these examples illustrate that the evolutionary modification or gain of a sexual signal is linked with a novel pattern of AR expression in the tissues that support it. We suggest that such co-evolution of AR expression and sex-specific or species-specific signaling behavior exists across vertebrates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#21,164,509
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,366
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,654
of 325,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 325,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.