↓ Skip to main content

Fertilisation and early developmental barriers to hybridisation in field crickets

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, February 2013
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Fertilisation and early developmental barriers to hybridisation in field crickets
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frances Tyler, Rolando Rodríguez-Muñoz, Tom Tregenza

Abstract

Post-mating interactions between the reproductive traits and gametes of mating individuals and among their genes within zygotes are invariably complex, providing multiple opportunities for reproduction to go awry. These interactions have the potential to act as barriers to gene flow between species, and may be important in the process of speciation. There are multiple post-mating barriers to interbreeding between the hybridising field crickets Gryllus bimaculatus and G. campestris. Female G. bimaculatus preferentially store sperm from conspecific males when mated to both conspecific and heterospecific partners. Additionally, conspecific males sire an even greater proportion of offspring than would be predicted from their sperm's representation in the spermatheca. The nature of these post-sperm-storage barriers to hybridisation are unknown. We use a fluorescent staining technique to determine whether barriers occur prior to, or during embryo development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 13%
Unknown 21 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 50%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 February 2013.
All research outputs
#1,711,532
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#631
of 2,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,442
of 286,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#34
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 286,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.