ArticlePloS one2024
Blind cavefish evolved higher foraging responses to chemo- and mechanostimuli.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel mechanisms of chemosensory adaptation to the cave environment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Enhanced multisensory integration in the olfactory bulb of the Mexican cavefish.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- ManyFishes: a big team science collaboration on fish comparative cognition.Animal cognition · 2025Review
- Multiple Pathways of Visual Adaptations for Water Column Usage in an Antarctic Adaptive Radiation.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In nature, animals must navigate to forage according to their sensory inputs. Different species use different sensory modalities to locate food efficiently. For teleosts, food emits visual, mechanical, chemical, and/or possibly weak-electrical signals, which can be detected by optic, auditory/lateral line, and olfactory/taste buds sensory systems. However, how fish respond to and use different sensory inputs when locating food, as well as the evolution of these sensory modalities, remain unclear. We examined the Mexican tetra, Astyanax mexicanus, which is composed of two different morphs: a sighted riverine (surface fish) and a blind cave morph (cavefish). Compared with surface fish, cavefish have enhanced non-visual sensory systems, including the mechanosensory lateral line system, chemical sensors comprising the olfactory system and taste buds, and the auditory system to help navigate toward food sources. We tested how visual, chemical, and mechanical stimuli evoke food-seeking behavior. In contrast to our expectations, both surface fish and cavefish did not follow a gradient of chemical stimulus (food extract) but used it as a cue for the ambient existence of food. Surface fish followed visual cues (red plastic beads and food pellets), but, in the dark, were likely to rely on mechanosensors-the lateral line and/or tactile sensor-as cavefish did. Our results indicate cavefish used a similar sensory modality to surface fish in the dark, while affinity levels to stimuli were higher in cavefish. In addition, cavefish evolved an extended circling strategy to forage, which may yield a higher chance to capture food by swimming-by the food multiple times instead of once through zigzag motion. In summary, we propose that ancestors of cavefish, similar to the modern surface fish, evolved extended food-seeking behaviors, including circling motion, to adapt to the dark.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.