↓ Skip to main content

The Company of Biologists

Functional morphology of tarsal adhesive pads and attachment ability in ticksIxodes ricinus(Arachnida, Acari, Ixodidae)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Biology, June 2017
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 (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Functional morphology of tarsal adhesive pads and attachment ability in ticksIxodes ricinus(Arachnida, Acari, Ixodidae)
Published in
Journal of Experimental Biology, June 2017
DOI 10.1242/jeb.152942
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dagmar Voigt, Stanislav Gorb

Abstract

The presence of well-developed, elastic claws on ticks and widely pilose hosts led us to hypothesise that ticks are mostly adapted to attachment and locomotion on rough, strongly corrugated and hairy, felt-like substrates. However, by using a combination of morphological and experimental approaches, we visualised the ultrastructure of attachment devices of Ixodes ricinus and showed that this species adheres more strongly to smooth surfaces than to rough ones. Between paired, elongated, curved, elastic claws, I. ricinus bears a large, flexible, foldable adhesive pad, which represents an adaptation to adhesion on smooth surfaces. Accordingly, ticks attached strongest to glass and to surface profiles similar to those of the human skin, generating safety factors (attachment force relative to body weight) up to 534 (females). Considerably lower attachment force was found on silicone substrates and as a result of thanatosis after jolting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Materials Science 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 168. 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 23 December 2021.
All research outputs
#209,621
of 23,394,089 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Biology
#119
of 8,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,886
of 317,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Biology
#1
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 317,562 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 67 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 99% of its contemporaries.