↓ Skip to main content

Patterns of genetic differentiation at MHC class I genes and microsatellites identify conservation units in the giant panda

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, October 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Patterns of genetic differentiation at MHC class I genes and microsatellites identify conservation units in the giant panda
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Zhu, Qiu-Hong Wan, Bin Yu, Yun-Fa Ge, Sheng-Guo Fang

Abstract

Evaluating patterns of genetic variation is important to identify conservation units (i.e., evolutionarily significant units [ESUs], management units [MUs], and adaptive units [AUs]) in endangered species. While neutral markers could be used to infer population history, their application in the estimation of adaptive variation is limited. The capacity to adapt to various environments is vital for the long-term survival of endangered species. Hence, analysis of adaptive loci, such as the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, is critical for conservation genetics studies. Here, we investigated 4 classical MHC class I genes (Aime-C, Aime-F, Aime-I, and Aime-L) and 8 microsatellites to infer patterns of genetic variation in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and to further define conservation units.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 11 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#636,300
of 9,724,852 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#234
of 2,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,522
of 151,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#10
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,724,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 151,540 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.