↓ Skip to main content

Genetic substructure in cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) on the island of Mauritius

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Genetic substructure in cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) on the island of Mauritius
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-748
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M Ogawa, Eric J Vallender

Abstract

Nonhuman primates are commonly used in biomedical research as animal models of human disease and behavior. Compared to common rodent models, nonhuman primates are genetically, physiologically, behaviorally and neurologically more similar to humans owing to more recent shared ancestry and therefore provide the advantage of greater translational validity in preclinical studies. The cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis) is one of the most commonly used nonhuman primates in academic and industry settings, yet population genetic research has revealed significant substructure throughout the species distribution that may confound studies. Cynomolgus monkeys introduced to Mauritius specifically have previously been thought to maintain the least genetic heterogeneity of all cynomolgus monkeys, although recent work, including work from our lab, suggests macaques from Mauritius too may harbor cryptic substructure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Malaysia 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 26%
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 31 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,569
of 11,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,274
of 248,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#146
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 248,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.