↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing the genetic differences between two distinct migrant groups from Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations in India

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 1,057)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Characterizing the genetic differences between two distinct migrant groups from Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations in India
Published in
BMC Genetics, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2156-15-86
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Ali, Xuanyao Liu, Esakimuthu Nisha Pillai, Peng Chen, Chiea-Chuen Khor, Rick Twee-Hee Ong, Yik-Ying Teo

Abstract

India is home to many ethnically and linguistically diverse populations. It is hypothesized that history of invasions by people from Persia and Central Asia, who are referred as Aryans in Hindu Holy Scriptures, had a defining role in shaping the Indian population canvas. A shift in spoken languages from Dravidian languages to Indo-European languages around 1500 B.C. is central to the Aryan Invasion Theory. Here we investigate the genetic differences between two sub-populations of India consisting of: (1) The Indo-European language speaking Gujarati Indians with genome-wide data from the International HapMap Project; and (2) the Dravidian language speaking Tamil Indians with genome-wide data from the Singapore Genome Variation Project.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Master 8 24%
Researcher 4 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 14 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,311,507
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genetics
#27
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,106
of 228,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genetics
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 228,773 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.