↓ Skip to main content

Subdivision of arthropod cap-n-collar expression domains is restricted to Mandibulata

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Subdivision of arthropod cap-n-collar expression domains is restricted to Mandibulata
Published in
EvoDevo, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-9139-5-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prashant P Sharma, Tripti Gupta, Evelyn E Schwager, Ward C Wheeler, Cassandra G Extavour

Abstract

The monophyly of Mandibulata - the division of arthropods uniting pancrustaceans and myriapods - is consistent with several morphological characters, such as the presence of sensory appendages called antennae and the eponymous biting appendage, the mandible. Functional studies have demonstrated that the patterning of the mandible requires the activity of the Hox gene Deformed and the transcription factor cap-n-collar (cnc) in at least two holometabolous insects: the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the beetle Tribolium castaneum. Expression patterns of cnc from two non-holometabolous insects and a millipede have suggested conservation of the labral and mandibular domains within Mandibulata. However, the activity of cnc is unknown in crustaceans and chelicerates, precluding understanding of a complete scenario for the evolution of patterning of this appendage within arthropods. To redress these lacunae, here we investigate the gene expression of the ortholog of cnc in Parhyale hawaiensis, a malacostracan crustacean, and two chelicerates: the harvestman Phalangium opilio, and the scorpion Centruroides sculpturatus.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 50 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Lecturer 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 22%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from EvoDevo
#201
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,306
of 318,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EvoDevo
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 318,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 4 of them.