↓ Skip to main content

A complete three-dimensional reconstruction of the myoanatomy of Loricifera: comparative morphology of an adult and a Higgins larva stage

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, April 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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
A complete three-dimensional reconstruction of the myoanatomy of Loricifera: comparative morphology of an adult and a Higgins larva stage
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1742-9994-10-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo C Neves, Xavier Bailly, Francesca Leasi, Heinrich Reichert, Martin V Sørensen, Reinhardt M Kristensen

Abstract

Loricifera is a group of small, marine animals, with undetermined phylogenetic relationships within Ecdysozoa (molting protostome animals). Despite their well-known external morphology, data on the internal anatomy of loriciferans are still incomplete. Aiming to increase the knowledge of this enigmatic phylum, we reconstruct for the first time the three-dimensional myoanatomy of loriciferans. Adult Nanaloricus sp. and the Higgins larva of Armorloricus elegans were investigated with cytochemical labeling techniques and CLSM. We discuss our findings with reference to other loriciferan species and recently established phylogenies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Norway 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 40 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 70%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 4 9%
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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,744,222
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#166
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,568
of 209,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 209,600 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.