↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary tradeoffs, Pareto optimality and the morphology of ammonite shells

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Systems Biology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 1,142)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Evolutionary tradeoffs, Pareto optimality and the morphology of ammonite shells
Published in
BMC Systems Biology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12918-015-0149-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Avichai Tendler, Avraham Mayo, Uri Alon

Abstract

Organisms that need to perform multiple tasks face a fundamental trade-off: no design can be optimal at all tasks at once. Recent theory based on Pareto optimality showed that such trade-offs lead to a highly defined range of phenotypes, which lie in low-dimensional polyhedra in the space of traits. The vertices of these polyhedra are called archetypes- the phenotypes that are optimal at a single task. To rigorously test this theory requires measurements of thousands of species over hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Ammonoid fossil shells provide an excellent model system for this purpose. Ammonoids have a well-defined geometry that can be parameterized using the features of their logarithmic-spiral-shaped shells. Their evolutionary history includes repeated mass extinctions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 110 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 28%
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 9%
Computer Science 9 8%
Physics and Astronomy 5 4%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 23 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,448,482
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Systems Biology
#21
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,924
of 258,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Systems Biology
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 258,823 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.