↓ Skip to main content

Safety in numbers: multiple occurrences of highly similar homologs among Azotobacter vinelandiicarbohydrate metabolism proteins probably confer adaptive benefits

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Safety in numbers: multiple occurrences of highly similar homologs among Azotobacter vinelandiicarbohydrate metabolism proteins probably confer adaptive benefits
Published in
BMC Genomics, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-192
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mali Mærk, Jostein Johansen, Helga Ertesvåg, Finn Drabløs, Svein Valla

Abstract

Gene duplication and horizontal gene transfer are common processes in bacterial and archaeal genomes, and are generally assumed to result in either diversification or loss of the redundant gene copies. However, a recent analysis of the genome of the soil bacterium Azotobacter vinelandii DJ revealed an abundance of highly similar homologs among carbohydrate metabolism genes. In many cases these multiple genes did not appear to be the result of recent duplications, or to function only as a means of stimulating expression by increasing gene dosage, as the homologs were located in varying functional genetic contexts. Based on these initial findings we here report in-depth bioinformatic analyses focusing specifically on highly similar intra-genome homologs, or synologs, among carbohydrate metabolism genes, as well as an analysis of the general occurrence of very similar synologs in prokaryotes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%

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 20 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,762,712
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,635
of 7,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,400
of 222,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#24
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 222,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.