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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Mobile DNA, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1759-8753-2-13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nalini Polavarapu, Gaurav Arora, Vinay K Mittal, John F McDonald |
| Abstract |
Although humans and chimpanzees have accumulated significant differences in a number of phenotypic traits since diverging from a common ancestor about six million years ago, their genomes are more than 98.5% identical at protein-coding loci. This modest degree of nucleotide divergence is not sufficient to explain the extensive phenotypic differences between the two species. It has been hypothesized that the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences lies at the level of gene regulation and is associated with the extensive insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation between the two species. To test the hypothesis that large INDELs (80 to 12,000 bp) may have contributed significantly to differences in gene regulation between the two species, we categorized human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in or around genes and determined whether this variation is significantly correlated with previously determined differences in gene expression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 31% |
| Researcher | 11 | 22% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 67% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 October 2013.
All research outputs
#1,899,883
of 24,411,829 outputs
Outputs from Mobile DNA
#27
of 348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,298
of 143,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mobile DNA
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,411,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 143,964 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.