Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Physics of unraveling and micromechanics of hagfish threads

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Hagfish threads unfurl when fluid drag beats a measured peeling force of about 6.8 nN.

desk verdict First direct force measurements on hagfish slime deployment, with a plausible but under-controlled peeling-force value that needs a cleaner separation from glass adhesion. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07243 v1 pith:BKAGCAPN submitted 2025-06-08 cond-mat.soft

Mohammad Tanver Hossain , Dakota Piorkowski , Andrew Lowe , Wonsik Eom , Abhishek Shetty , Sameh H. Tawfick , Douglas S. Fudge , Randy H. Ewoldt This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords hagfishslimethreadskeinpeelingforcenumbershear-inducedunravelingmucusadhesionrheo-opticsmicromechanicsdeployablefiber-gel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first direct, in situ measurements of the microscopic forces that allow hagfish slime threads to leave their coiled skeins and form a defensive network. The central result is a median peeling force of about 6.8 nN to detach a thread from its skein, more than an order of magnitude lower than the earlier estimate near 100 nN. Feeding that value into the peeling-number force balance predicts a critical shear rate near $18$ s$^{-1}$, matching the observed onset of unraveling between 15 and 25 s$^{-1}$ in controlled shear flow. The paper also finds that thread-mucus adhesion is about 29 nN, several times stronger than the peeling force, while thread-thread cohesion stays below 1 nN, and that deployed threads barely change the bulk shear rheology. If these measurements hold, hagfish slime deployment is a drag-peeling event that moderate flow alone can trigger, a design rule for synthetic deployable fiber-gel systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless peeling number $\wp = F_{\mathrm{drag}}/F_{\mathrm{peel}}$, which compares the fluid force pulling a thread into the flow with the force resisting its release from the skein; deployment proceeds when $\wp > 1$. The load-bearing move is replacing the prior assumed peeling force of about 100 nN with the directly measured median of 6.8 nN, which shifts the predicted threshold to about 18 s$^{-1}$. The measurements rely on a calibrated glass-rod cantilever force sensor (Euler-Bernoulli beam bending with a resonance-calibrated modulus), a rheo-optical parallel-plate shear cell that imposes controlled flow while images are recorded, and the sawtooth force-extension signature interpreted as the unthwarting of hidden thread length within the conical loop architecture.

What would settle it

Vary the rod's surface chemistry or contact time in the peeling test: if the first detachment peak shifts substantially, then 6.8 nN is not an intrinsic property of the skein. Alternatively, track a single skein in a microfluidic channel with a known shear-rate profile and compare the onset of visible unraveling to the model prediction of about 18 s$^{-1}$ using the independently measured peeling force.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that thread deployment from hagfish skeins is governed by a balance between hydrodynamic drag and a weak internal peeling resistance. Using a calibrated glass cantilever, the authors measure a median peeling force of $F_{\mathrm{peel}} = 6.8$ nN, interpret the sawtooth force-extension trace as discrete hidden-length release from the coiled architecture, and insert this value into the peeling-number model to predict a critical shear rate of roughly $18$ s$^{-1}$ for free skeins in seawater-like viscosity. They observe unraveling onset at 15-25 s$^{-1}$, consistent with that prediction, and show that mucin vesicles are not required for the threshold. Thread-mucus adhesion averages about 29 nN, roughly four to five times the peeling force, while thread-thread cohesion stays below 1 nN. In shear, deployed threads contribute negligibly to viscosity and normal stress difference, which the authors attribute to the mucus matrix dominating the bulk flow response.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on reading the first force peak in the glass-rod test, after 30 seconds of passive contact, as the intrinsic peeling resistance of the thread from the skein rather than as adhesion between the glass rod and the thread or rupture of that attachment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moderate shear flow alone can deploy hagfish slime: the measured threshold corresponds to shear stresses around 0.05-0.08 Pa, comparable to near-wall flow in narrow tubes at a few millimetres per second.
  • Because the peeling resistance is roughly 15 times lower than the previous estimate, the energy barrier to deployment is far smaller than suspected, which makes the sub-second timing of the defense easier to explain.
  • Mucus is not needed to start unraveling but is the dominant adhesive partner once threads deploy, since thread-mucus adhesion (about 29 nN) far exceeds thread-thread cohesion (below 1 nN).
  • In steady shear, the thread network contributes little to viscosity or normal stress; the mucus matrix sets the bulk rheology, implying threads act mainly as structural organizers rather than thickeners.
  • Free skeins trapped in the stagnation plane of counter-rotating plates do not unravel more easily than pinned skeins, indicating that surface pinning is not required for deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: the sawtooth peeling trace predicts that the spacing between force peaks should correlate with the local coiling density of the skein, a link that could be tested with skeins at different maturation stages.
  • Extension: because the paper itself notes the peeling tests were run in sodium citrate buffer and the parallel-plate geometry applies the nominal shear rate mainly near the rim, repeating both measurements in seawater-like ionic conditions and in a uniform shear geometry would test how much those biases shift the 6.8 nN value and the $18$ s$^{-1}$ prediction.
  • Extension: if the first detachment peak in the glass-rod test is partly glass-thread adhesion rather than intrinsic peeling, varying the rod surface chemistry or contact time should change that peak; an independent measurement of that kind would separate the two contributions.
  • Extension: since threads are nearly invisible in shear rheology but are thought to stabilize the network, extensional rheometry (for example capillary breakup or opposed-jet flow) should reveal the thread network's mechanical contribution that the present shear measurements miss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports direct micromechanical force measurements on hagfish slime components (mucus, thread skeins, thread–mucus adhesion, thread–thread cohesion) using a calibrated glass-rod force sensor, and combines these with rheo-optical shear experiments to characterize the shear rate at which thread skeins unravel. The central claim is that the measured median peeling force of approximately 6.8 nN, inserted into an updated peeling-number force balance, predicts a critical shear rate of about 18 s^-1 for unraveling, consistent with the observed onset near 15–25 s^-1. The paper also reports that thread–mucus adhesion is several times larger than the peeling force, that thread–thread cohesion is negligible, and that deployed threads contribute little to the bulk shear rheology.

Significance. If the central measurement holds, this is an important quantitative advance: it provides the first direct in situ force measurements for hagfish slime deployment, revises a prior order-of-magnitude estimate of the peeling force downward by more than an order of magnitude, and strengthens a specific mechanistic model of flow-triggered unraveling. The study has notable strengths: multiple independent trials for the peeling tests, a control for hydrodynamic drag on the bare rod, direct optical confirmation of unraveling under controlled shear, and an unusually candid limitations section that acknowledges the non-physiological buffer, the radial shear-rate nonuniformity in the parallel-plate geometry, and the geometric assumptions in the mucus stress–strain conversion. The comparison between the measured peeling force and the predicted critical shear rate gives the paper a falsifiable, quantitative core that is well matched to the journal's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] The load-bearing input to Eq. (3) is the peeling force C = 6.8 nN, but this value is taken from the initial force peak in Fig. 3d/e, which the text itself identifies as 'the detachment of the glass rod from the skein' rather than as the intrinsic force required to peel a thread out of the skein. The glass rod was attached by passive contact for approximately 30 s, and the only control shown (Fig. 3c) subtracts hydrodynamic drag on the bare rod. No control experiment separates glass–thread adhesion from the skein's internal adhesive resistance. Since Eq. (3) uses C linearly in the denominator, a contribution of even a few nN from glass–thread adhesion would shift the predicted critical shear rate away from the claimed 18 s^-1 and from the observed 15–25 s^-1 onset. The central validation therefore requires an additional control (for example, contacting a bare glass rod to a skein and pulling without thread extraction, or a direct comparison of initial-peak forces with forces recorded when the rod is already attached and only thread peeling occurs) or a detailed argument establishing that the measured initial peak is indeed the intrinsic peeling force.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3d/e] The manuscript states that the sawtooth region following the initial peak corresponds to actual single-thread unraveling and is characterized by lower forces, yet the model uses the higher initial-peak value of 6.8 nN. If the intrinsic peeling resistance is better represented by the lower sawtooth forces, Eq. (3) would predict a critical shear rate smaller than 18 s^-1, moving it away from the experimentally observed onset; if the initial peak contains an attachment-rupture contribution, the prediction would be too high. The authors should report the force statistics (median, range, and number of peaks) for the sawtooth region for the same trials and explicitly justify which of the two force levels controls the deployment threshold used in the model.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Section 4.4] The parallel-plate geometry used for the unraveling experiments produces a radially dependent shear rate, gamma_dot(r) = Omega r / h, as the authors acknowledge in Section 4.4. Because only the peripheral region experiences the nominal reported shear rate, the observed onset of unraveling should be reported in terms of the local shear rate at the tracked skein positions, or at least with the radial location of the first visually detected unraveling. As written, the comparison between the observed onset (variously stated as 10–30, 15–20, and 15–25 s^-1) and the model prediction of 18 s^-1 is ambiguous, since the two quantities may refer to different local shear rates.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] Equation (3), the approximate peeling-number balance for shear flow, is introduced with a Stokes-like prefactor 6 pi and an R0^2 scaling but without a derivation or an explicit connection to the corresponding expression in Chaudhary et al. [16]. The prefactor depends on the assumed shape of the object being dragged and on whether the skein is free or pinned, and the manuscript uses different numerical predictions for the free and pinned cases (18 vs. 27 s^-1). Since this equation is the quantitative bridge between the measured peeling force and the predicted critical shear rate, the authors should provide the derivation or the exact reference expression and state the assumptions underlying the 6 pi prefactor.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The text states that mucus samples showed a 'soft modulus (∼0.18 Pa)', but Table 1 reports an average Young's modulus of 0.18 kPa. This appears to be a unit typo and should be corrected to 0.18 kPa.
  2. [Figure 3e] The inset boxplot reports a median peeling force of 6.8 nN and the text gives a standard error of 1.3 nN, but the number of independent trials is not stated. Please report n and, ideally, the full distribution rather than only a boxplot summary.
  3. [Section 4.4] The parenthetical reference to 'Figure 4c' in the buffer-concentration discussion appears to be a cross-reference error; the relevant unraveling map as a function of citrate concentration is Figure 6c, not Figure 4c.
  4. [Sections 3.5 and 5] The onset of unraveling is described inconsistently across the paper: Section 3.5.1 says the transition is observed between 10 and 30 s^-1, Section 3.5.2 says approximately 15–20 s^-1, and the Conclusion states 15–25 s^-1. These values should be harmonized and the basis for the chosen range stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 4.2] The discussion of mucus rheology mentions the Boger-fluid-like behavior and the correction for inertial normal-stress artifacts, but the relevant supplementary figures (Fig. S4, Fig. S9) are referenced only in passing. Adding one sentence in the main text explaining how the corrected normal-stress data were obtained would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured peeling force enters the force balance as an independent input, and the predicted critical shear rate is a genuine consistency check.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: measure the median peeling force (≈6.8 nN) from the initial detachment peak in Section 3.2; observe the critical shear onset (15–25 s^-1) in Section 3.5; then insert the measured force into Eq. (3), γdot = C/(6πμR0^2), using independently stated values μ = 2 mPa·s and R0 = 100 μm, obtaining γdot ≈ 18 s^-1. The observed onset is not used to set C, μ, or R0, and no parameter is fitted to make the prediction agree. The force-balance framework is attributed to Chaudhary et al. [16], a prior publication coauthored by R.H. Ewoldt, but that citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense: the model is an externally stated framework whose assumptions do not include the measured 6.8 nN value, and the present measurement is a new, independent input that revises the prior ≈100 nN estimate. The potential caveat that the first detachment peak may include glass–thread adhesion is a measurement-validity concern, not a circularity: even if the value were contaminated, the calculation still uses that measured value as an input rather than as a rearranged version of the predicted threshold. The predicted 18 s^-1 could have disagreed with the observed 15–25 s^-1 range, so the agreement is a meaningful consistency check.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model prediction depends on a hand-picked skein radius and on a Stokes-drag scaling for a permeable, irregular coiled skein. The peeling force measurement is interpreted as the intrinsic peeling resistance even though the first peak is the detachment of the glass rod from the skein. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • skein radius R0 = 100 µm
    Used in Eq. (3) as the critical length scale for the drag force. The predicted critical shear rate scales as R0^-2, and the value is a typical estimate chosen by the authors, not measured for each trial.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Euler-Bernoulli cantilever beam theory with fixed-free boundary conditions (Eq. 1) and resonance calibration (Eq. 2) convert rod deflection to force.
    Standard mechanics; the rod is treated as a slender elastic beam of known modulus and diameter.
  • domain assumption The drag force on a free skein is approximated by Stokes drag on a sphere of radius R0, F ≈ 6πµγdot R0^2 (Eq. 3).
    The skein is a permeable, irregular coil, not a solid sphere; the prefactor and length scale are not derived from the skein geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper The first force peak in the peeling test is the intrinsic peeling resistance of the thread from the skein.
    The glass rod attaches by passive contact; the peak is the detachment of the rod from the skein and could include glass-thread adhesion.
  • domain assumption The nominal shear rate in the parallel-plate rheometer is representative of the flow experienced by the skeins.
    Shear rate varies linearly with radial position, and only peripheral regions see the nominal value, as the authors note in Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption Peeling force measured in 0.55 M sodium citrate buffer is representative of seawater conditions.
    The authors state the buffer is non-physiological and likely overestimates peeling force, which affects the comparison with seawater unraveling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics of unraveling and micromechanics of hagfish threads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKAGCAPN

@misc{pith2026250607243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics of unraveling and micromechanics of hagfish threads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKAGCAPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07243}
}
read the original abstract

Hagfish slime is a unique biological material composed of mucus and protein threads that rapidly deploy into a cohesive network when deployed in seawater. The forces involved in thread deployment and interactions among mucus and threads are key to understanding how hagfish slime rapidly assembles into a cohesive, functional network. Despite extensive interest in its biophysical properties, the mechanical forces governing thread deployment and interaction remain poorly quantified. Here, we present the first direct in situ measurements of the micromechanical forces involved in hagfish slime formation, including mucus mechanical properties, skein peeling force, thread-mucus adhesion, and thread-thread cohesion. Using a custom glass-rod force sensing system, we show that thread deployment initiates when peeling forces exceed a threshold of approximately 6.8 nN. To understand the flow strength required for unraveling, we used a rheo-optic setup to impose controlled shear flow, enabling us to directly observe unraveling dynamics and determine the critical shear rate for unraveling of the skeins, which we then interpreted using an updated peeling-based force balance model. Our results reveal that thread-mucus adhesion dominates over thread-thread adhesion and that deployed threads contribute minimally to bulk shear rheology at constant flow rate. These findings clarify the physics underlying the rapid, flow-triggered assembly of hagfish slime and inform future designs of synthetic deployable fiber-gel systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Underlying physics of hagfish thread unraveling and interactions. (a) Optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mechanical characterization of hagfish slime mucus. (a) Schematic of the experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Characterization of hagfish skein peeling force. (a) Schematic of the experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Characterization of thread–mucus adhesion and thread–thread cohesion forces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Characterization of skein unraveling dynamics and rheological behavior under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Characterization of skein unraveling dynamics and rheological behavior under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Unravelling hagfish slime

    G. Chaudhary, R. H. Ewoldt, and J.-L. Thiffeault, “Unravelling hagfish slime”, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 16, 20180710 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Stabi- lization and swelling of hagfish slime mucin vesicles

    J. E. Herr, T. M. Winegard, M. J. O’Donnell, P. H. Yancey, and D. S. Fudge, “Stabi- lization and swelling of hagfish slime mucin vesicles”, Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 1092–1099 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Methylamines keep hagfish slime thread skeins together

    K. Knight, “Methylamines keep hagfish slime thread skeins together”, Journal of Exper- imental Biology 222, 218107 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    High concentrations of trimethylamines in slime glands inhibit skein unraveling in Pacific hagfish

    G.Jain, M.Starksen, K.Singh, C.Hoang, P.Yancey, C.McCord, andD.S.Fudge, “High concentrations of trimethylamines in slime glands inhibit skein unraveling in Pacific hagfish”, Journal of Experimental Biology 222, jeb213793 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    A fibrous protein from the slime of the hagfish

    J. D. Ferry, “A fibrous protein from the slime of the hagfish”, Journal of Biological Chemistry 138, 263–268 (1941)

    work page 1941

  6. [5]

    Ultrastructure and permeability characteristics of the membranes of mucous granules of the hagfish

    D. L. Luchtel, A. W. Martin, and I. Deyrup-Olsen, “Ultrastructure and permeability characteristics of the membranes of mucous granules of the hagfish”, Tissue and Cell 23, 939–948 (1991)

    work page 1991

  7. [6]

    Defensive slime formation in Pacific hagfish requires Ca2+ - and aquaporin-mediated swelling of released mucin vesicles

    J. E. Herr, A. M. Clifford, G. G. Goss, and D. S. Fudge, “Defensive slime formation in Pacific hagfish requires Ca2+ - and aquaporin-mediated swelling of released mucin vesicles”, Journal of Experimental Biology 217, 2288–2296 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Deployment of hagfish slime thread skeins requires the transmission of mixing forces via mucin strands

    T. M. Winegard and D. S. Fudge, “Deployment of hagfish slime thread skeins requires the transmission of mixing forces via mucin strands”, Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 1235–1240 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Coiling and maturation of a high-performance fibre in hagfish slime gland thread cells

    T. Winegard et al., “Coiling and maturation of a high-performance fibre in hagfish slime gland thread cells”, Nature Communications 5, 3534 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Hagfish slime as a defence mechanism against gill-breathing predators

    V. Zintzen, C. D. Roberts, M. J. Anderson, A. L. Stewart, C. D. Struthers, and E. S. Harvey, “Hagfish slime as a defence mechanism against gill-breathing predators”, Scientific Reports 1, 131 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Non-linear viscoelasticity of hagfish slime

    R. H. Ewoldt, T. M. Winegard, and D. S. Fudge, “Non-linear viscoelasticity of hagfish slime”, International Journal of Non–Linear Mechanics 46, 627–636 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    The Hagfish Gland Thread Cell: A Fiber-Producing Cell Involved in Predator Defense

    D. Fudge and S. Schorno, “The Hagfish Gland Thread Cell: A Fiber-Producing Cell Involved in Predator Defense”, Cells 5, 25 (2016). 23

    2016

  5. [12]

    Spontaneous unraveling of hagfish slime thread skeins is mediated by a seawater-soluble protein adhesive

    M. A. Bernards, I. Oke, A. Heyland, and D. S. Fudge, “Spontaneous unraveling of hagfish slime thread skeins is mediated by a seawater-soluble protein adhesive”, Journal of Experimental Biology 217, 1263–1268 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Composition, morphology and mechanics of hagfish slime

    D. S. Fudge, N. Levy, S. Chiu, and J. M. Gosline, “Composition, morphology and mechanics of hagfish slime”, Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 4613–4625 (2005)

    2005

  7. [14]

    An unusual intermediate filament subunit from the cytoskeletal biopolymer released extracellularly into seawater by the primitive hagfish (Eptatretus stouti)

    E. A. Koch, R. H. Spitzer, R. B. Pithawalla, and D. A. Parry, “An unusual intermediate filament subunit from the cytoskeletal biopolymer released extracellularly into seawater by the primitive hagfish (Eptatretus stouti)”, Journal of Cell Science 107, 3133–3144 (1994)

    1994

  8. [15]

    The Me- chanical Properties of Hydrated Intermediate Filaments: Insights from Hagfish Slime Threads

    D. S. Fudge, K. H. Gardner, V. T. Forsyth, C. Riekel, and J. M. Gosline, “The Me- chanical Properties of Hydrated Intermediate Filaments: Insights from Hagfish Slime Threads”, Biophysical Journal 85, 2015–2027 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Hagfish slime exudate stabilization and its effect on slime formation and functionality

    L. J. Böni, R. Zurflüh, M.Widmer, P. Fischer, E. J.Windhab, P. A. Rühs, and S. Kuster, “Hagfish slime exudate stabilization and its effect on slime formation and functionality”, Biology Open 6, 1115–1122 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hagfish slime and mucin flow properties and their implications for defense

    L. Böni, P. Fischer, L. Böcker, S. Kuster, and P. A. Rühs, “Hagfish slime and mucin flow properties and their implications for defense”, Scientific Reports 6, 30371 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Mechanisms of gill-clogging by hagfish slime

    L. Taylor, G. Chaudhary, G. Jain, A. Lowe, A. Hupe, A. Negishi, Y. Zeng, R. H. Ewoldt, and D. S. Fudge, “Mechanisms of gill-clogging by hagfish slime”, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 20, 20220774 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Designing Complex Fluids

    R. H. Ewoldt and C. Saengow, “Designing Complex Fluids”, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 54, 413–441 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Hagfish slime ecomechanics: testing the gill-clogging hypothesis

    J. Lim, D. S. Fudge, N. Levy, and J. M. Gosline, “Hagfish slime ecomechanics: testing the gill-clogging hypothesis.”, Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 702–710 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Composition, morphology and mechanics of hagfish slime

    D. S. Fudge, N. Levy, S. Chiu, and J. M. Gosline, “Composition, morphology and mechanics of hagfish slime”, J. Exp. Biol. 208, 4613–4625 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    A New Model of Hagfish Slime Mucous Vesicle Stabilization and Deployment

    D. S. Fudge, S. N. Ferraro, S. A. Siwiecki, A. Hupé, and G. Jain, “A New Model of Hagfish Slime Mucous Vesicle Stabilization and Deployment”, Langmuir 36, 6681–6689 (2020). 24

    2020

  16. [24]

    The slime glands and thread cells of the hagfish, Polistrotrema stouti

    W.W. Newby, “The slime glands and thread cells of the hagfish, Polistrotrema stouti”, Journal of Morphology 78, 397–409 (1946)

    1946

  17. [25]

    Unraveling inter-species differences in hagfish slime skein deployment

    J. Bernards Mark A., S. Schorno, E. McKenzie, T. M. Winegard, I. Oke, D. Plachetzki, and D. S. Fudge, “Unraveling inter-species differences in hagfish slime skein deployment”, Journal of Experimental Biology 221, jeb176925 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Concentration effects of three common fish anesthetics on Pacific hagfish (Eptatretus stoutii)

    C. L. McCord, E. Whiteley, J. Liang, C. Trejo, R. Caputo, E. Itehua, H. Hasan, S. Hernandez, K. Jagnandan, and D. Fudge, “Concentration effects of three common fish anesthetics on Pacific hagfish (Eptatretus stoutii)”, Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 46, 931–943 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Structural forms and possible roles of aligned cytoskeletal biopolymers in hagfish (slime eel) mucus

    E. A. Koch, R. H. Spitzer, and R. B. Pithawalla, “Structural forms and possible roles of aligned cytoskeletal biopolymers in hagfish (slime eel) mucus”, Journal of Structural Biology 106, 205–210 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Shear-induced migration of confined flexible fibers

    N. Xue, J. K. Nunes, and H. A. Stone, “Shear-induced migration of confined flexible fibers”, Soft Matter 18, 514–525 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials (Prentice Hall, 2014)

    R. Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials (Prentice Hall, 2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Thomson, Theory of Vibration with Applications, 1st edition (CRC Press, 1993)

    W. Thomson, Theory of Vibration with Applications, 1st edition (CRC Press, 1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    Macosko, Rheology: principles, measurements, and applications, 1st edition (Wiley-VCH, 1994)

    C.W. Macosko, Rheology: principles, measurements, and applications, 1st edition (Wiley-VCH, 1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    Protorheology

    M. T. Hossain and R. H. Ewoldt, “Protorheology", Journal of Rheology 68, 113-144 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    R. H. Ewoldt, M. T. Johnston, and L. M. Caretta, Experimental challenges of shear rheology: how to avoid bad data (Springer New York, 2015), pages 207–241

    2015

  26. [34]

    Effect of ionic strength and seawater cations on hagfish slime formation

    L. J. Böni, R. Zurflüh, M. E. Baumgartner, E. J.Windhab, P. Fischer, S. Kuster, and P. A. Rühs, “Effect of ionic strength and seawater cations on hagfish slime formation”, Scientific Reports 8, 9867 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    The motion of ellipsoidal particles immersed in a viscous fluid

    G. B. Jeffery and L. N. G. Filon, “The motion of ellipsoidal particles immersed in a viscous fluid”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 102, 161–179 (1922)

    1922

  28. [36]

    M. D. Graham, Microhydrodynamics, Brownian Motion, and Complex Fluids (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018). 25

    2018

  29. [37]

    Boger Fluids

    D. F. James, “Boger Fluids”, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 41, 129–142 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Hierarchical looping results in extreme extensibility of silk fibre composites pro- duced by Southern house spiders (Kukulcania hibernalis)

    D. Liprandi, M. Ramírez, S. Schlüter, L. Baumgart, A.-C. Joel, P. Michalik, and J. O. Wolff, “Hierarchical looping results in extreme extensibility of silk fibre composites pro- duced by Southern house spiders (Kukulcania hibernalis)”, Interface Focus 14, 20230071 (2024). 26

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.