↓ Skip to main content

Light is required for proper female mate choice between winged and wingless males in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Genes and Genetic Systems, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Light is required for proper female mate choice between winged and wingless males in Drosophila
Published in
Genes and Genetic Systems, July 2018
DOI 10.1266/ggs.18-00004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuki Watanabe, Yuki Suzuki, Show Inami, Hirono Ohashi, Takaomi Sakai

Abstract

In many animal species, females choose potential mating partners according to their own preferences. Thus, female preference-based mate choice affects intraspecific mating success and prevents interspecific mating. To clarify the neuronal basis of female mate choice, it is essential to identify the important relevant sensory cues. In the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, the courtship song of males promotes female sexual receptivity. When wild-type virgin females can freely choose one of two types of courting males (winged or wingless males), they prefer to mate with winged males. Here, we report a crucial sensory cue relevant to this female mate choice. In a female choice test, female receptivity toward winged and wingless males was markedly reduced when females had auditory impairments, although females with visual or olfactory impairments showed normal receptivity similar to wild-type females. However, females with visual impairments did not show clear mate preference toward winged males. Thus, these findings suggest that females utilize visual cues in mate choice between winged and wingless males in Drosophila.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Psychology 2 11%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Unknown 6 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Genes and Genetic Systems
#241
of 420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,451
of 339,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes and Genetic Systems
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 420 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 339,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them