↓ Skip to main content

Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, October 2005
DOI 10.1186/1742-9994-2-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Sanetra, Gerrit Begemann, May-Britt Becker, Axel Meyer

Abstract

One of the surprising insights gained from research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is that increasing diversity in body plans and morphology in organisms across animal phyla are not reflected in similarly dramatic changes at the level of gene composition of their genomes. For instance, simplicity at the tissue level of organization often contrasts with a high degree of genetic complexity. Also intriguing is the observation that the coding regions of several genes of invertebrates show high sequence similarity to those in humans. This lack of change (conservation) indicates that evolutionary novelties may arise more frequently through combinatorial processes, such as changes in gene regulation and the recruitment of novel genes into existing regulatory gene networks (co-option), and less often through adaptive evolutionary processes in the coding portions of a gene. As a consequence, it is of great interest to examine whether the widespread conservation of the genetic machinery implies the same developmental function in a last common ancestor, or whether homologous genes acquired new developmental roles in structures of independent phylogenetic origin. To distinguish between these two possibilities one must refer to current concepts of phylogeny reconstruction and carefully investigate homology relationships. Particularly problematic in terms of homology decisions is the use of gene expression patterns of a given structure. In the future, research on more organisms other than the typical model systems will be required since these can provide insights that are not easily obtained from comparisons among only a few distantly related model species.

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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
Brazil 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Norway 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 145 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 25%
Researcher 34 21%
Student > Master 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 102 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 17%
Environmental Science 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 14 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,308,698
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#522
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,419
of 58,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 58,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.