↓ Skip to main content

Surviving the cold: molecular analyses of insect cryoprotective dehydration in the Arctic springtail Megaphorura arctica (Tullberg)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2009
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Surviving the cold: molecular analyses of insect cryoprotective dehydration in the Arctic springtail Megaphorura arctica (Tullberg)
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-10-328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melody S Clark, Michael AS Thorne, Jelena Purać, Gavin Burns, Guy Hillyard, Željko D Popović, Gordana Grubor-Lajšić, M Roger Worland

Abstract

Insects provide tractable models for enhancing our understanding of the physiological and cellular processes that enable survival at extreme low temperatures. They possess three main strategies to survive the cold: freeze tolerance, freeze avoidance or cryoprotective dehydration, of which the latter method is exploited by our model species, the Arctic springtail Megaphorura arctica, formerly Onychiurus arcticus (Tullberg 1876). The physiological mechanisms underlying cryoprotective dehydration have been well characterised in M. arctica and to date this process has been described in only a few other species: the Antarctic nematode Panagrolaimus davidi, an enchytraied worm, the larvae of the Antarctic midge Belgica antarctica and the cocoons of the earthworm Dendrobaena octaedra. There are no in-depth molecular studies on the underlying cold survival mechanisms in any species.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Serbia 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 72 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 27%
Researcher 17 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 19%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 January 2014.
All research outputs
#328,052
of 3,630,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#257
of 3,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,190
of 117,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#25
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,630,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,347 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 117,110 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.