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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Introducing TreeCollapse: a novel greedy algorithm to solve the cophylogeny reconstruction problem
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-s16-s14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin Drinkwater, Michael A Charleston |
| Abstract |
Cophylogeny mapping is used to uncover deep coevolutionary associations between two or more phylogenetic histories at a macro coevolutionary scale. As cophylogeny mapping is NP-Hard, this technique relies heavily on heuristics to solve all but the most trivial cases. One notable approach utilises a metaheuristic to search only a subset of the exponential number of fixed node orderings possible for the phylogenetic histories in question. This is of particular interest as it is the only known heuristic that guarantees biologically feasible solutions. This has enabled research to focus on larger coevolutionary systems, such as coevolutionary associations between figs and their pollinator wasps, including over 200 taxa. Although able to converge on solutions for problem instances of this size, a reduction from the current cubic running time is required to handle larger systems, such as Wolbachia and their insect hosts. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 27% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
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 24 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,838,150
of 23,343,453 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,429
of 7,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,602
of 363,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#126
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,343,453 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 7,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 363,844 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 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.