↓ Skip to main content

Giant viruses, giant chimeras: The multiple evolutionary histories of Mimivirus genes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Giant viruses, giant chimeras: The multiple evolutionary histories of Mimivirus genes
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-8-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moreira, Céline Brochier-Armanet

Abstract

Although capable to evolve, viruses are generally considered non-living entities because they are acellular and devoid of metabolism. However, the recent publication of the genome sequence of the Mimivirus, a giant virus that parasitises amoebas, strengthened the idea that viruses should be included in the tree of life. In fact, the first phylogenetic analyses of a few Mimivirus genes that are also present in cellular lineages suggested that it could define an independent branch in the tree of life in addition to the three domains, Bacteria, Archaea and Eucarya.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 182 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 17%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Master 25 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 5%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 34 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 15%
Environmental Science 9 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Chemistry 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 44 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,715,890
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#718
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,522
of 166,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 166,852 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.