Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T04:07:48.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structures and Function of Remora Adhesion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2013

Jason H. Nadler,
Allison J. Mercer,
Michael Culler,
Keri A. Ledford,
Ryan Bloomquist and
Angela Lin
Jason H. Nadler
Affiliation:
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
Allison J. Mercer
Affiliation:
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
Michael Culler
Affiliation:
Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
Keri A. Ledford
Affiliation:
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
Ryan Bloomquist
Affiliation:
School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.
Angela Lin
Affiliation:
Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, U.S.A.Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Remoras (echeneid fish) reversibly attach and detach to marine hosts, almost instantaneously, to “hitchhike” and feed. The adhesion mechanisms that they use are remarkably insensitive to substrate topology and quite different from the latching and suction cup-based systems associated with other species at similar length scales. Remora adhesion is also anisotropic; drag forces induced by the swimming host increase adhesive strength, while rapid detachment occurs when the remora reverses this shear load. In this work, an investigation of the adhesive system’s functional morphology and tissue properties was carried out initially through dissection and x-ray microtomographic analyses. Resulting finite element models of these components have provided new insights into the adaptive, hierarchical nature of the mechanisms and a path toward a wide range of engineering applications.

Keywords

biologicalx-ray tomographyadhesion

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Autumn, K., Sitti, M., Liang, Y. C. A., Peattie, A. M., Hansen, W. R., Sponberg, S., Kenny, T. W., Fearing, R., Israelachvili, J. N., and Full, R. J., “Evidence for van der Waals adhesion in gecko setae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 99, pp. 12252–12256, Sep 17 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drotlef, D.-M., Stepien, L., Kappl, M., Barnes, W. J. P., Butt, H.-J., and del Campo, A., “Insights into the Adhesive Mechanisms of Tree Frogs using Artificial Mimics,” Advanced Functional Materials, pp. n/a-n/a, 2012.Google Scholar
Federle, W., Barnes, W. J. P., Baumgartner, W., Drechsler, P., and Smith, J. M., “Wet but not slippery: boundary friction in tree frog adhesive toe pads,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 3, pp. 689–697, Oct 22 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malvadkar, N. A., Hancock, M. J., Sekeroglu, K., Dressick, W. J., and Demirel, M. C., “An engineered anisotropic nanofilm with unidirectional wetting properties,” Nat Mater, vol. 9, pp. 1023–8, Dec 2010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, S. B. and Diehl, D., “Toe Pad Morphology and Mechanisms of Sticking in Frogs,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 13, pp. 199–216, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, B., “Phylogeny of the species of the superfamily Echeneoidea (Perciformes: Carangoidei: Echeneidae, Rachycentridae, and Coryphaenidae), with an interpretation of echeneid hitchhiking behaviour,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 80, pp. 596–623, 2002/04/01 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, B. and Motta, P., “Suction disk performance of echeneid fishes,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 84, pp. 42–50, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, B. and Motta, P., “Suction disk performance of echeneid fishes,” vol. 84, p. 42, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storms, R., “X.—The adhesive disk of Echeneis,” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. 2, pp. 67–76, 1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gudger, E., A Study of the Smallest Shark-suckers (Echeneididae) on Record: With Special Reference to Metamorphosis: By Order of the Trustees of American Museum of Natural History, 1926.Google Scholar
Fraser, G. J., Bloomquist, R. F., and Streelman, J. T., “A periodic pattern generator for dental diversity,” BMC Biol, vol. 6, p. 32, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, J. M. and Handrigan, G. R., “Reptilian tooth development,” genesis, vol. 49, pp. 247–260, 2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosset, A., Spadola, L., and Ratib, O., “OsiriX: An Open-Source Software for Navigating in Multidimensional DICOM Images,” Journal of Digital Imaging, vol. 17, pp. 205–216, 2004/09/01 2004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., Tinevez, J.-Y., White, D. J., Hartenstein, V., Eliceiri, K., Tomancak, P., and Cardona, A., “Fiji: an open-source platform for biologicalimage analysis,” Nat Meth, vol. 9, pp. 676–682, 2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLachlan, G. and Peel, D., in General Introduction Finite Mixture Models, ed: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.Google Scholar
Britz, R. and Johnson, G. D., “Ontogeny and homology of the skeletal elements that form the sucking disc of remoras (Teleostei, Echeneoidei, Echeneidae),” Journal of Morphology, vol. 273, pp. 1353–1366, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, B. A. and Motta, P. J., “Suction disk performance of echeneid fishes,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 84, pp. 42–50, 2006/01/01 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polasek, L. K. and Davis, R. W., “Heterogeneity of myoglobin distribution in the locomotory muscles of five cetacean species,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 204, pp. 209–15, Jan 2001.Google Scholar