↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of an adaptive behavior and its sensory receptors promotes eye regression in blind cavefish: response to Borowsky (2013)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Evolution of an adaptive behavior and its sensory receptors promotes eye regression in blind cavefish: response to Borowsky (2013)
Published in
BMC Biology, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-11-82
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masato Yoshizawa, Kelly E O’Quin, William R Jeffery

Abstract

Vibration attraction behavior (VAB) is the swimming of fish toward an oscillating object, a behavior that is likely adaptive because it increases foraging efficiency in darkness. VAB is seen in a small proportion of Astyanax surface-dwelling populations (surface fish) but is pronounced in cave-dwelling populations (cavefish). In a recent study, we identified two quantitative trait loci for VAB on Astyanax linkage groups 2 and 17. We also demonstrated that a small population of superficial neuromast sensors located within the eye orbit (EO SN) facilitate VAB, and two quantitative trait loci (QTL) were identified for EO SN that were congruent with those for VAB. Finally, we showed that both VAB and EO SN are negatively correlated with eye size, and that two (of several) QTL for eye size overlap VAB and EO SN QTLs. From these results, we concluded that the adaptive evolution of VAB and EO SN has contributed to the indirect loss of eyes in cavefish, either as a result of pleiotropy or tight physical linkage of the mutations underlying these traits. In a subsequent commentary, Borowsky argues that there is poor experimental support for our conclusions. Specifically, Borowsky states that: (1) linkage groups (LGs) 2 and 17 harbor QTL for many traits and, therefore, no evidence exists for an exclusive interaction among the overlapping VAB, EO SN and eye size QTL; (2) some of the QTL we identified are too broad (>20 cM) to support the hypothesis of correlated evolution due to pleiotropy or hitchhiking; and (3) VAB is unnecessary to explain the indirect evolution of eye-loss since the negative polarity of numerous eye QTL is consistent with direct selection against eyes. Borowsky further argues that (4) it is difficult to envision an evolutionary scenario whereby VAB and EO SN drive eye loss, since the eyes must first be reduced in order to increase the number of EO SN and, therefore, VAB. In this response, we explain why the evidence of one trait influencing eye reduction is stronger for VAB than other traits, and provide further support for a scenario whereby elaboration of VAB in surface fish may precede complete eye-loss.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 9 16%

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 31 July 2013.
All research outputs
#3,070,130
of 4,507,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#591
of 653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,197
of 89,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 89,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.