↓ Skip to main content

Of woods and webs: possible alternatives to the tree of life for studying genomic fluidity in E. coli

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Of woods and webs: possible alternatives to the tree of life for studying genomic fluidity in E. coli
Published in
Biology Direct, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-6-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Beauregard-Racine, Cédric Bicep, Klaus Schliep, Philippe Lopez, François-Joseph Lapointe, Eric Bapteste

Abstract

We introduce several forest-based and network-based methods for exploring microbial evolution, and apply them to the study of thousands of genes from 30 strains of E. coli. This case study illustrates how additional analyses could offer fast heuristic alternatives to standard tree of life (TOL) approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 7%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 60 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Researcher 13 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 61%
Philosophy 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,361,534
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#413
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,165
of 119,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 119,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.