↓ Skip to main content

Nociceptive Biology of Molluscs and Arthropods: Evolutionary Clues About Functions and Mechanisms Potentially Related to Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Nociceptive Biology of Molluscs and Arthropods: Evolutionary Clues About Functions and Mechanisms Potentially Related to Pain
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edgar T. Walters

Abstract

Important insights into the selection pressures and core molecular modules contributing to the evolution of pain-related processes have come from studies of nociceptive systems in several molluscan and arthropod species. These phyla, and the chordates that include humans, last shared a common ancestor approximately 550 million years ago. Since then, animals in these phyla have continued to be subject to traumatic injury, often from predators, which has led to similar adaptive behaviors (e.g., withdrawal, escape, recuperative behavior) and physiological responses to injury in each group. Comparisons across these taxa provide clues about the contributions of convergent evolution and of conservation of ancient adaptive mechanisms to general nociceptive and pain-related functions. Primary nociceptors have been investigated extensively in a few molluscan and arthropod species, with studies of long-lasting nociceptive sensitization in the gastropod, Aplysia, and the insect, Drosophila, being especially fruitful. In Aplysia, nociceptive sensitization has been investigated as a model for aversive memory and for hyperalgesia. Neuromodulator-induced, activity-dependent, and axotomy-induced plasticity mechanisms have been defined in synapses, cell bodies, and axons of Aplysia primary nociceptors. Studies of nociceptive sensitization in Drosophila larvae have revealed numerous molecular contributors in primary nociceptors and interacting cells. Interestingly, molecular contributors examined thus far in Aplysia and Drosophila are largely different, but both sets overlap extensively with those in mammalian pain-related pathways. In contrast to results from Aplysia and Drosophila, nociceptive sensitization examined in moth larvae (Manduca) disclosed central hyperactivity but no obvious peripheral sensitization of nociceptive responses. Squid (Doryteuthis) show injury-induced sensitization manifested as behavioral hypersensitivity to tactile and especially visual stimuli, and as hypersensitivity and spontaneous activity in nociceptor terminals. Temporary blockade of nociceptor activity during injury subsequently increased mortality when injured squid were exposed to fish predators, providing the first demonstration in any animal of the adaptiveness of nociceptive sensitization. Immediate responses to noxious stimulation and nociceptive sensitization have also been examined behaviorally and physiologically in a snail (Helix), octopus (Adopus), crayfish (Astacus), hermit crab (Pagurus), and shore crab (Hemigrapsus). Molluscs and arthropods have systems that suppress nociceptive responses, but whether opioid systems play antinociceptive roles in these phyla is uncertain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 26%
Neuroscience 20 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 6%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 28 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 21 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,427,303
of 26,362,847 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#773
of 15,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,481
of 345,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#44
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,362,847 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 15,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 345,691 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 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 90% of its contemporaries.