↓ Skip to main content

Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, September 2009
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 (#33 of 537)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
373 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
connotea
3 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
Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things
Published in
Biology Direct, September 2009
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-4-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Bapteste, Maureen A O'Malley, Robert G Beiko, Marc Ereshefsky, J Peter Gogarten, Laura Franklin-Hall, François-Joseph Lapointe, John Dupré, Tal Dagan, Yan Boucher, William Martin

Abstract

The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In multicellular eukaryotes, the molecular mechanisms and species-level population genetics of variation do indeed mainly cause a tree-like structure over time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 13 3%
Germany 5 1%
Spain 5 1%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 9 2%
Unknown 327 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 87 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 22%
Student > Bachelor 35 9%
Student > Master 31 8%
Professor 23 6%
Other 80 21%
Unknown 34 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 212 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 10%
Computer Science 12 3%
Environmental Science 11 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 3%
Other 46 12%
Unknown 45 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,459,707
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#33
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,210
of 106,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 106,917 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.