↓ Skip to main content

Gene-environment and protein-degradation signatures characterize genomic and phenotypic diversity in wild Caenorhabditis eleganspopulations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, August 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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Gene-environment and protein-degradation signatures characterize genomic and phenotypic diversity in wild Caenorhabditis eleganspopulations
Published in
BMC Biology, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-11-93
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rita JM Volkers, L Basten Snoek, Caspara J van Hellenberg Hubar, Renata Coopman, Wei Chen, Wentao Yang, Mark G Sterken, Hinrich Schulenburg, Bart P Braeckman, Jan E Kammenga

Abstract

Analyzing and understanding the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes is at the heart of genetics. Research on the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has been instrumental for unraveling genotype-phenotype relations, and has important implications for understanding the biology of mammals, but almost all studies, including forward and reverse genetic screens, are limited by investigations in only one canonical genotype. This hampers the detection and functional analysis of allelic variants, which play a key role in controlling many complex traits. It is therefore essential to explore the full potential of the natural genetic variation and evolutionary context of the genotype-phenotype map in wild C. elegans populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 67 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 36%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 8 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,328,072
of 22,151,016 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#1,014
of 1,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,481
of 178,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,151,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 178,020 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 80% 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