↓ Skip to main content

Advances in biodiversity: metagenomics and the unveiling of biological dark matter

Overview of attention for article published in Standards in Genomic Sciences, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 542)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
63 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Advances in biodiversity: metagenomics and the unveiling of biological dark matter
Published in
Standards in Genomic Sciences, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40793-016-0180-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert J. Robbins, Leonard Krishtalka, John C. Wooley

Abstract

Efforts to harmonize genomic data standards used by the biodiversity and metagenomic research communities have shown that prokaryotic data cannot be understood or represented in a traditional, classical biological context for conceptual reasons, not technical ones. Biology, like physics, has a fundamental duality-the classical macroscale eukaryotic realm vs. the quantum microscale microbial realm-with the two realms differing profoundly, and counter-intuitively, from one another. Just as classical physics is emergent from and cannot explain the microscale realm of quantum physics, so classical biology is emergent from and cannot explain the microscale realm of prokaryotic life. Classical biology describes the familiar, macroscale realm of multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms, which constitute a highly derived and constrained evolutionary subset of the biosphere, unrepresentative of the vast, mostly unseen, microbial world of prokaryotic life that comprises at least half of the planet's biomass and most of its genetic diversity. The two realms occupy fundamentally different mega-niches: eukaryotes interact primarily mechanically with the environment, prokaryotes primarily physiologically. Further, many foundational tenets of classical biology simply do not apply to prokaryotic biology. Classical genetics one held that genes, arranged on chromosomes like beads on a string, were the fundamental units of mutation, recombination, and heredity. Then, molecular analysis showed that there were no fundamental units, no beads, no string. Similarly, classical biology asserts that individual organisms and species are fundamental units of ecology, evolution, and biodiversity, composing an evolutionary history of objectively real, lineage-defined groups in a single-rooted tree of life. Now, metagenomic tools are forcing a recognition that there are no completely objective individuals, no unique lineages, and no one true tree. The newly revealed biosphere of microbial dark matter cannot be understood merely by extending the concepts and methods of eukaryotic macrobiology. The unveiling of biological dark matter is allowing us to see, for the first time, the diversity of the entire biosphere and, to paraphrase Darwin, is providing a new view of life. Advancing and understanding that view will require major revisions to some of the most fundamental concepts and theories in biology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 5%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Estonia 1 1%
Serbia 1 1%
Unknown 70 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 23%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#567,027
of 18,238,764 outputs
Outputs from Standards in Genomic Sciences
#3
of 542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,489
of 273,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Standards in Genomic Sciences
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,238,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 542 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 273,414 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them