↓ Skip to main content

The phylogenetic position of ctenophores and the origin(s) of nervous systems

Overview of attention for article published in EvoDevo, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 313)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
24 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
282 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
The phylogenetic position of ctenophores and the origin(s) of nervous systems
Published in
EvoDevo, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/2041-9139-6-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gáspár Jákely, Jordi Paps, Claus Nielsen

Abstract

Ctenophores have traditionally been treated as eumetazoans, but some recent whole genome studies have revived the idea that they are, rather, the sister group to all other metazoans. This deep branching position implies either that nervous systems have evolved twice, in Ctenophora and in Eumetazoa, or that an ancestral metazoan nervous system has been lost in sponges and placozoans. We caution, however, that phylogenetic-tree construction artifacts may have placed ctenophores too deep in the metazoan tree. We discuss nervous system origins under these alternative phylogenies and in light of comparative data of ctenophore and eumetazoan nervous systems. We argue that characters like neuropeptide signaling, ciliary photoreceptors, gap junctions and presynaptic molecules are consistent with a shared ancestry of nervous systems. However, if ctenophores are the sister group to all other metazoans, this ancestral nervous system was likely very simple. Further studies are needed to resolve the deep phylogeny of metazoans and to have a better understanding of the early steps of nervous system evolution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters 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 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 263 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 23%
Student > Bachelor 56 20%
Researcher 44 16%
Student > Master 33 12%
Professor 14 5%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 26 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 143 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 21%
Environmental Science 14 5%
Neuroscience 11 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 33 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 14 July 2021.
All research outputs
#581,554
of 21,575,819 outputs
Outputs from EvoDevo
#6
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,957
of 344,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EvoDevo
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,575,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 344,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.