↓ Skip to main content

Extended Newick: it is time for a standard representation of phylogenetic networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, December 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
9 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Extended Newick: it is time for a standard representation of phylogenetic networks
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-9-532
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel Cardona, Francesc Rosselló, Gabriel Valiente

Abstract

Phylogenetic trees resulting from molecular phylogenetic analysis are available in Newick format from specialized databases but when it comes to phylogenetic networks, which provide an explicit representation of reticulate evolutionary events such as recombination, hybridization or lateral gene transfer, the lack of a standard format for their representation has hindered the publication of explicit phylogenetic networks in the specialized literature and their incorporation in specialized databases. Two different proposals to represent phylogenetic networks exist: as a single Newick string (where each hybrid node is splitted once for each parent) or as a set of Newick strings (one for each hybrid node plus another one for the phylogenetic network).

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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 6%
Germany 2 2%
Sweden 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Iceland 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 80 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 47%
Computer Science 15 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 9%
Mathematics 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 10 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,818,819
of 20,419,783 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,801
of 6,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,116
of 167,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#11
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,419,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 167,014 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.