↓ Skip to main content

The Hox genes Ultrabithorax and abdominal-A specify three different types of abdominal appendage in the springtail Orchesella cincta (Collembola)

Overview of attention for article published in EvoDevo, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
The Hox genes Ultrabithorax and abdominal-A specify three different types of abdominal appendage in the springtail Orchesella cincta (Collembola)
Published in
EvoDevo, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-9139-5-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbora Konopova, Michael Akam

Abstract

In Drosophila and many other insects, the Hox genes Ultrabithorax (Ubx) and abdominal-A (abd-A) suppress limb formation on most or all segments of the abdomen. However, a number of basal hexapod lineages retain multiple appendages on the abdomen. In the collembolans or springtails, three abdominal segments develop specialized organs that originate from paired appendage primordia which fuse at the midline: the first abdominal segment bears the collophore (ventral tube), involved in osmoregulation; the fourth segment bears the furca, the leaping organ, and the third segment bears the retinaculum, which retains the furca at rest. Ubx and abd-A are known to be expressed in the springtail abdomen, but what role they play in specifying these distinct abdominal appendages is not known. This is largely because no genetic model has been established in collembolans or any other non-insect hexapod.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 46 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 15%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from EvoDevo
#142
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,274
of 318,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EvoDevo
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 318,511 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.