↓ Skip to main content

Gene duplication and the origins of morphological complexity in pancrustacean eyes, a genomic approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Gene duplication and the origins of morphological complexity in pancrustacean eyes, a genomic approach
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, April 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-10-123
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ajna S Rivera, M Sabrina Pankey, David C Plachetzki, Carlos Villacorta, Anna E Syme, Jeanne M Serb, Angela R Omilian, Todd H Oakley

Abstract

Duplication and divergence of genes and genetic networks is hypothesized to be a major driver of the evolution of complexity and novel features. Here, we examine the history of genes and genetic networks in the context of eye evolution by using new approaches to understand patterns of gene duplication during the evolution of metazoan genomes. We hypothesize that 1) genes involved in eye development and phototransduction have duplicated and are retained at higher rates in animal clades that possess more distinct types of optical design; and 2) genes with functional relationships were duplicated and lost together, thereby preserving genetic networks. To test these hypotheses, we examine the rates and patterns of gene duplication and loss evident in 19 metazoan genomes, including that of Daphnia pulex - the first completely sequenced crustacean genome. This is of particular interest because the pancrustaceans (hexapods+crustaceans) have more optical designs than any other major clade of animals, allowing us to test specifically whether the high amount of disparity in pancrustacean eyes is correlated with a higher rate of duplication and retention of vision genes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Iceland 1 1%
Unknown 87 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 31%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 71%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 5 5%

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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,220,022
of 21,321,365 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#2,578
of 2,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,021
of 345,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#148
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,365 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 345,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.