↓ Skip to main content

phyloXML: XML for evolutionary biology and comparative genomics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
469 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
372 Mendeley
citeulike
17 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
phyloXML: XML for evolutionary biology and comparative genomics
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-10-356
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mira V Han, Christian M Zmasek

Abstract

Evolutionary trees are central to a wide range of biological studies. In many of these studies, tree nodes and branches need to be associated (or annotated) with various attributes. For example, in studies concerned with organismal relationships, tree nodes are associated with taxonomic names, whereas tree branches have lengths and oftentimes support values. Gene trees used in comparative genomics or phylogenomics are usually annotated with taxonomic information, genome-related data, such as gene names and functional annotations, as well as events such as gene duplications, speciations, or exon shufflings, combined with information related to the evolutionary tree itself. The data standards currently used for evolutionary trees have limited capacities to incorporate such annotations of different data types.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 5%
Germany 6 2%
China 4 1%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 16 4%
Unknown 310 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 95 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 24%
Student > Master 42 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 5%
Other 65 17%
Unknown 29 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 212 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 14%
Environmental Science 21 6%
Computer Science 18 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 2%
Other 26 7%
Unknown 37 10%
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 08 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,949,679
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,681
of 7,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,025
of 94,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#25
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 94,246 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.