↓ Skip to main content

Pandoraviruses are highly derived phycodnaviruses

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Pandoraviruses are highly derived phycodnaviruses
Published in
Biology Direct, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-8-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalya Yutin, Eugene V Koonin

Abstract

The recently discovered Pandoraviruses are by far the largest viruses known, with their 2 megabase genomes exceeding in size the genomes of numerous bacteria and archaea. Pandoraviruses show a distant relationship with other nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDV) of eukaryotes, lack some of the NCLDV core genes and in particular do not appear to be specifically related to the other, better characterized family of giant viruses, the Mimiviridae. Here we report phylogenetic analysis of 6 core NCLDV genes that confidently places Pandoraviruses within the family Phycodnaviridae, with an apparent specific affinity with Coccolithoviruses. We conclude that, despite their many unusual characteristics, Pandoraviruses are highly derived phycodnaviruses. These findings imply that giant viruses have independently evolved from smaller NCLDV on at least two occasions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Lithuania 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 73 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 16 20%

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 02 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,725,419
of 21,712,946 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#70
of 470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,883
of 208,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,712,946 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 208,700 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.