↓ Skip to main content

Molecular phylogeny of the higher and lower taxonomy of the Fusariumgenus and differences in the evolutionary histories of multiple genes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Molecular phylogeny of the higher and lower taxonomy of the Fusariumgenus and differences in the evolutionary histories of multiple genes
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-11-322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maiko Watanabe, Takahiro Yonezawa, Ken-ichi Lee, Susumu Kumagai, Yoshiko Sugita-Konishi, Keiichi Goto, Yukiko Hara-Kudo

Abstract

Species of the Fusarium genus are important fungi which is associated with health hazards in human and animals. The taxonomy of this genus has been a subject of controversy for many years. Although many researchers have applied molecular phylogenetic analysis to examine the taxonomy of Fusarium species, their phylogenetic relationships remain unclear only few comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of the Fusarium genus and a lack of suitable nucleotides and amino acid substitution rates. A previous stugy with whole genome comparison among Fusairum species revealed the possibility that each gene in Fusarium genomes has a unique evolutionary history, and such gene may bring difficulty to the reconstruction of phylogenetic tree of Fusarium. There is a need not only to check substitution rates of genes but also to perform the exact evaluation of each gene-evolution.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 182 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 18%
Student > Bachelor 31 17%
Student > Master 29 16%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 37 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 98 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Engineering 4 2%
Environmental Science 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 40 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,922
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,575
of 153,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#37
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 153,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.