↓ Skip to main content

Parallel selection on gene copy number variations through evolution of three-spined stickleback genomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Parallel selection on gene copy number variations through evolution of three-spined stickleback genomes
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-735
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shotaro Hirase, Haruka Ozaki, Wataru Iwasaki

Abstract

Understanding the genetic basis of adaptive evolution is one of the major goals in evolutionary biology. Recently, it has been revealed that gene copy number variations (GCNVs) constitute significant proportions of genomic diversities within natural populations. However, it has been unclear whether GCNVs are under positive selection and contribute to adaptive evolution. Parallel evolution refers to adaptive evolution of the same trait in related but independent lineages, and three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) is a well-known model organism. Through identification of genetic variations under parallel selection, i.e., variations shared among related but independent lineages, evidence of positive selection is obtained. In this study, we investigated whole-genome resequencing data from the marine and freshwater groups of three-spined sticklebacks from diverse areas along the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean coastlines, and searched for GCNVs under parallel selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 5%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,577,877
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,211
of 11,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,413
of 248,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#28
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,282 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 248,183 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.