↓ Skip to main content

What can vertebrates tell us about segmentation?

Overview of attention for article published in EvoDevo, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
What can vertebrates tell us about segmentation?
Published in
EvoDevo, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-9139-5-24
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Graham, Thomas Butts, Andrew Lumsden, Clemens Kiecker

Abstract

Segmentation is a feature of the body plans of a number of diverse animal groupings, including the annelids, arthropods and chordates. However, it has been unclear whether or not these different manifestations of segmentation are independently derived or have a common origin. Central to this issue is whether or not there are common developmental mechanisms that establish segmentation and the evolutionary origins of these processes. A fruitful way to address this issue is to consider how segmentation in vertebrates is directed. During vertebrate development three different segmental systems are established: the somites, the rhombomeres and the pharyngeal arches. In each an iteration of parts along the long axis is established. However, it is clear that the formation of the somites, rhombomeres or pharyngeal arches have little in common, and as such there is no single segmentation process. These different segmental systems also have distinct evolutionary histories, thus highlighting the fact that segmentation can and does evolve independently at multiple points. We conclude that the term segmentation indicates nothing more than a morphological description and that it implies no mechanistic similarity. Thus it is probable that segmentation has arisen repeatedly during animal evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Student > Master 14 14%
Researcher 12 12%
Professor 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 18 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#16,578,616
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from EvoDevo
#266
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,655
of 242,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EvoDevo
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 242,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.