Back

Attachment performance of cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) suckers depends on the interaction between papillae and substrate topography

te Lindert, J. S.; Klaassen van Oorschot, B.; Geelen, T.; te Lindert, E. L.; Giesbers, M.; Gussekloo, S. W.; Muijres, F. T.; Amador, G. J.

2025-08-06 biophysics
10.1101/2025.08.05.668641 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cephalopods are highly versatile predators, with many species using suckers to capture their prey. These suckers attach to substrates ranging from the stiff, rough exoskeletons of crustaceans to the soft, smooth mucosal tissues of other cephalopods. Despite generating higher suction pressures than octopuses, less attention has been given to the biomechanics of cuttlefish suckers. Cuttlefish suckers exhibit a stiff, rough papillated rim that acts as a seal when in contact with a substrate. We hypothesise that these rim papillae have evolved to attach to rough substrates that match their own rugosity and to prevent the trapping of water at the contact interface, which occurs for soft interfaces underwater. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the passive attachment performance of common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) suckers ex vivo on a variety of artificial substrates that differed in both stiffness and roughness. We found that suckers generated larger attachment forces on stiffer substrates. Furthermore, sucker attachment forces varied significantly with substrate roughness, where highest attachment forces occurred on substrate roughnesses that coincided with the average sucker papillae size ([~]6.33 m RMS). These findings indicate that the papillae morphology may be associated with attachment performance, and could inform the design and development of versatile, bioinspired suction cups. Summary StatementCuttlefish suction cups have microscopic pillars that may interact with rough or soft surfaces to improve adhesion. We systematically examine this hypothesis using a pull-off experiment and a mathematical model.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
14.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.1%
3
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
4
Integrative And Comparative Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
5
European Biophysics Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
8
Limnology and Oceanography
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.0%
10
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.5%
12
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
13
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
14
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
17
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
18
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 39%
1.1%
20
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
23
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.6%