↓ Skip to main content

Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
51 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
4 Wikipedia pages


54 Dimensions

Readers on

209 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.
Archaeal ancestors of eukaryotes: not so elusive any more
Published in
BMC Biology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12915-015-0194-5
Pubmed ID

Eugene V. Koonin


The origin of eukaryotes is one of the hardest problems in evolutionary biology and sometimes raises the ominous specter of irreducible complexity. Reconstruction of the gene repertoire of the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) has revealed a highly complex organism with a variety of advanced features but no detectable evolutionary intermediates to explain their origin. Recently, however, genome analysis of diverse archaea led to the discovery of apparent ancestral versions of several signature eukaryotic systems, such as the actin cytoskeleton and the ubiquitin network, that are scattered among archaea. These findings inspired the hypothesis that the archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes was an unusually complex form with an elaborate intracellular organization. The latest striking discovery made by deep metagenomic sequencing vindicates this hypothesis by showing that in phylogenetic trees eukaryotes fall within a newly identified archaeal group, the Lokiarchaeota, which combine several eukaryotic signatures previously identified in different archaea. The discovery of complex archaea that are the closest living relatives of eukaryotes is most compatible with the symbiogenetic scenario for eukaryogenesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 193 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 7%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 28 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 54 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Environmental Science 5 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 35 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
of 19,102,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
of 1,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 262,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,102,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 262,673 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them