↓ Skip to main content

Segmentation of the millipede trunk as suggested by a homeotic mutant with six extra pairs of gonopods

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Segmentation of the millipede trunk as suggested by a homeotic mutant with six extra pairs of gonopods
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1742-9994-11-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nesrine Akkari, Henrik Enghoff, Alessandro Minelli

Abstract

The mismatch between dorsal and ventral trunk features along the millipede trunk was long a subject of controversy, largely resting on alternative interpretations of segmentation. Most models of arthropod segmentation presuppose a strict sequential antero-posterior specification of trunk segments, whereas alternative models involve the early delineation of a limited number of 'primary segments' followed by their sequential stereotypic subdivision into 2n definitive segments. The 'primary segments' should be intended as units identified by molecular markers, rather than as overt morphological entities. Two predictions were suggested to test the plausibility of multiple-duplication models of segmentation: first, a specific pattern of evolvability of segment number in those arthropod clades in which segment number is not fixed (e.g., epimorphic centipedes and millipedes); second, the occurrence of discrete multisegmental patterns due to early, initially contiguous positional markers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 29%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 14%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 March 2023.
All research outputs
#7,029,691
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#333
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,519
of 320,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 320,064 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.