↓ Skip to main content

Sex Combs are Important for Male Mating Success in Drosophila melanogaster

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Genetics, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Sex Combs are Important for Male Mating Success in Drosophila melanogaster
Published in
Behavior Genetics, January 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10519-008-9190-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Siang Ng, Artyom Kopp

Abstract

The sex comb is one of the most rapidly evolving male-specific traits in Drosophila, making it an attractive model to study sexual selection and developmental evolution. Drosophila males use their sex combs to grasp the females' abdomen and genitalia and to spread their wings prior to copulation. To test the role of this structure in male mating success in Drosophila melanogaster, we genetically ablated the sex comb by expressing the female-specific isoform of the sex determination gene transformer in the tarsal segments of male legs. This technique does not remove the sex comb entirely, but simply restores the morphology of its constituent bristles to the ancestral condition found in Drosophila species that lack sex combs. Direct observations and differences in long-term insemination rates show that the loss of the sex comb strongly reduces the ability of males to copulate with females. Detailed analysis of video recordings indicates that this effect is not due to changes in the males' courtship behavior. Rapid evolution of sex comb morphology may be driven either by changes in female preferences, or by co-evolution between sex combs and female external genitalia.

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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Japan 2 2%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 103 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 23%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 4 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 20%
Psychology 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,846,675
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Genetics
#282
of 908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,668
of 155,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Genetics
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 155,052 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.