↓ Skip to main content

Breath-giving cooperation: critical review of origin of mitochondria hypotheses

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 559)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Breath-giving cooperation: critical review of origin of mitochondria hypotheses
Published in
Biology Direct, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13062-017-0190-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

István Zachar, Eörs Szathmáry

Abstract

The origin of mitochondria is a unique and hard evolutionary problem, embedded within the origin of eukaryotes. The puzzle is challenging due to the egalitarian nature of the transition where lower-level units took over energy metabolism. Contending theories widely disagree on ancestral partners, initial conditions and unfolding of events. There are many open questions but there is no comparative examination of hypotheses. We have specified twelve questions about the observable facts and hidden processes leading to the establishment of the endosymbiont that a valid hypothesis must address. We have objectively compared contending hypotheses under these questions to find the most plausible course of events and to draw insight on missing pieces of the puzzle. Since endosymbiosis borders evolution and ecology, and since a realistic theory has to comply with both domains' constraints, the conclusion is that the most important aspect to clarify is the initial ecological relationship of partners. Metabolic benefits are largely irrelevant at this initial phase, where ecological costs could be more disruptive. There is no single theory capable of answering all questions indicating a severe lack of ecological considerations. A new theory, compliant with recent phylogenomic results, should adhere to these criteria. This article was reviewed by Michael W. Gray, William F. Martin and Purificación López-García.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 16 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#850,071
of 19,176,496 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#23
of 559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,164
of 283,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,176,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 283,189 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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