| Title |
Keratin Durability Has Implications for the Fossil Record: Results from a 10 Year Feather Degradation Experiment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0157699 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison E. Moyer, Wenxia Zheng, Mary H. Schweitzer |
| Abstract |
Keratinous 'soft tissue' structures (i.e. epidermally derived and originally non-biomineralized), include feathers, skin, claws, beaks, and hair. Despite their relatively common occurrence in the fossil record (second only to bone and teeth), few studies have addressed natural degradation processes that must occur in all organic material, including those keratinous structures that are incorporated into the rock record as fossils. Because feathers have high preservation potential and strong phylogenetic signal, in the current study we examine feathers subjected to different burial environments for a duration of ~10 years, using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and in situ immunofluorescence (IF). We use morphology and persistence of specific immunoreactivity as indicators of preservation at the molecular and microstructural levels. We show that feather keratin is durable, demonstrates structural and microstructural integrity, and retains epitopes suitable for specific antibody recognition in even the harshest conditions. These data support the hypothesis that keratin antibody reactivity can be used to identify the nature and composition of epidermal structures in the rock record, and to address evolutionary questions by distinguishing between alpha- (widely distributed) and beta- (limited to sauropsids) keratin. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Argentina | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 11 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,527,010
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,911
of 223,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,742
of 371,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#349
of 4,436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,159 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 91% 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 371,432 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,436 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 92% of its contemporaries.