↓ Skip to main content

Complete plastome sequences of Equisetum arvense and Isoetes flaccida: implications for phylogeny and plastid genome evolution of early land plant lineages

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Complete plastome sequences of Equisetum arvense and Isoetes flaccida: implications for phylogeny and plastid genome evolution of early land plant lineages
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-10-321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth G Karol, Kathiravetpillai Arumuganathan, Jeffrey L Boore, Aaron M Duffy, Karin DE Everett, John D Hall, S Kellon Hansen, Jennifer V Kuehl, Dina F Mandoli, Brent D Mishler, Richard G Olmstead, Karen S Renzaglia, Paul G Wolf

Abstract

Despite considerable progress in our understanding of land plant phylogeny, several nodes in the green tree of life remain poorly resolved. Furthermore, the bulk of currently available data come from only a subset of major land plant clades. Here we examine early land plant evolution using complete plastome sequences including two previously unexamined and phylogenetically critical lineages. To better understand the evolution of land plants and their plastomes, we examined aligned nucleotide sequences, indels, gene and nucleotide composition, inversions, and gene order at the boundaries of the inverted repeats.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 102 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Master 11 10%
Professor 10 9%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 66%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 10 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 January 2024.
All research outputs
#8,463,388
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,938
of 3,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,145
of 110,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#27
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 110,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.