↓ Skip to main content

The wolf reference genome sequence (Canis lupus lupus) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
54 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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 wolf reference genome sequence (Canis lupus lupus) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics
Published in
BMC Genomics, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3883-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Jose A. Samaniego Castruita, Mikkel-Holger S. Sinding, Lukas F. K. Kuderna, Jannikke Räikkönen, Bent Petersen, Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten, Greger Larson, Ludovic Orlando, Tomas Marques-Bonet, Anders J. Hansen, Love Dalén, M. Thomas P. Gilbert

Abstract

An increasing number of studies are addressing the evolutionary genomics of dog domestication, principally through resequencing dog, wolf and related canid genomes. There is, however, only one de novo assembled canid genome currently available against which to map such data - that of a boxer dog (Canis lupus familiaris). We generated the first de novo wolf genome (Canis lupus lupus) as an additional choice of reference, and explored what implications may arise when previously published dog and wolf resequencing data are remapped to this reference. Reassuringly, we find that regardless of the reference genome choice, most evolutionary genomic analyses yield qualitatively similar results, including those exploring the structure between the wolves and dogs using admixture and principal component analysis. However, we do observe differences in the genomic coverage of re-mapped samples, the number of variants discovered, and heterozygosity estimates of the samples. In conclusion, the choice of reference is dictated by the aims of the study being undertaken; if the study focuses on the differences between the different dog breeds or the fine structure among dogs, then using the boxer reference genome is appropriate, but if the aim of the study is to look at the variation within wolves and their relationships to dogs, then there are clear benefits to using the de novo assembled wolf reference genome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 24%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 7 5%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 32%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 29 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 25 June 2022.
All research outputs
#834,557
of 22,255,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#113
of 10,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,236
of 287,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,255,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,513 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 287,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them