↓ Skip to main content

Why Can’t Rodents Vomit? A Comparative Behavioral, Anatomical, and Physiological Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
62 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
6 Redditors
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
Why Can’t Rodents Vomit? A Comparative Behavioral, Anatomical, and Physiological Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles C. Horn, Bruce A. Kimball, Hong Wang, James Kaus, Samuel Dienel, Allysa Nagy, Gordon R. Gathright, Bill J. Yates, Paul L. R. Andrews

Abstract

The vomiting (emetic) reflex is documented in numerous mammalian species, including primates and carnivores, yet laboratory rats and mice appear to lack this response. It is unclear whether these rodents do not vomit because of anatomical constraints (e.g., a relatively long abdominal esophagus) or lack of key neural circuits. Moreover, it is unknown whether laboratory rodents are representative of Rodentia with regards to this reflex. Here we conducted behavioral testing of members of all three major groups of Rodentia; mouse-related (rat, mouse, vole, beaver), Ctenohystrica (guinea pig, nutria), and squirrel-related (mountain beaver) species. Prototypical emetic agents, apomorphine (sc), veratrine (sc), and copper sulfate (ig), failed to produce either retching or vomiting in these species (although other behavioral effects, e.g., locomotion, were noted). These rodents also had anatomical constraints, which could limit the efficiency of vomiting should it be attempted, including reduced muscularity of the diaphragm and stomach geometry that is not well structured for moving contents towards the esophagus compared to species that can vomit (cat, ferret, and musk shrew). Lastly, an in situ brainstem preparation was used to make sensitive measures of mouth, esophagus, and shoulder muscular movements, and phrenic nerve activity-key features of emetic episodes. Laboratory mice and rats failed to display any of the common coordinated actions of these indices after typical emetic stimulation (resiniferatoxin and vagal afferent stimulation) compared to musk shrews. Overall the results suggest that the inability to vomit is a general property of Rodentia and that an absent brainstem neurological component is the most likely cause. The implications of these findings for the utility of rodents as models in the area of emesis research are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 189 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 56 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 15%
Neuroscience 24 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 64 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 113. 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 18 February 2024.
All research outputs
#383,633
of 25,901,238 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,429
of 225,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,561
of 213,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#113
of 5,239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,901,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 213,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.