↓ Skip to main content

Functional implications of Neandertal introgression in modern humans

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
93 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Functional implications of Neandertal introgression in modern humans
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13059-017-1181-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Dannemann, Kay Prüfer, Janet Kelso

Abstract

Admixture between early modern humans and Neandertals approximately 50,000-60,000 years ago has resulted in 1.5-4% Neandertal ancestry in the genomes of present-day non-Africans. Evidence is accumulating that some of these archaic alleles are advantageous for modern humans, while others are deleterious; however, the major mechanism by which these archaic alleles act has not been fully explored. Here we assess the contributions of introgressed non-synonymous and regulatory variants to modern human protein and gene expression variation. We show that gene expression changes are more often associated with Neandertal ancestry than expected, and that the introgressed non-synonymous variants tend to have less predicted functional effect on modern human proteins than mutations that arose on the human lineage. Conversely, introgressed alleles contribute proportionally more to expression variation than non-introgressed alleles. Our results suggest that the major influence of Neandertal introgressed alleles is through their effects on gene regulation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 126 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Master 12 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 30 23%
Unknown 19 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 21 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#323,336
of 18,952,180 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#234
of 3,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,020
of 276,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,952,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 276,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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