↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing selective pressures on the pathway for de novo biosynthesis of pyrimidines in yeast

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Characterizing selective pressures on the pathway for de novo biosynthesis of pyrimidines in yeast
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12862-015-0515-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Russell A. Hermansen, Brian K. Mannakee, Wolfgang Knecht, David A. Liberles, Ryan N. Gutenkunst

Abstract

Selection on proteins is typically measured with the assumption that each protein acts independently. However, selection more likely acts at higher levels of biological organization, requiring an integrative view of protein function. Here, we built a kinetic model for de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to relate pathway function to selective pressures on individual protein-encoding genes. Gene families across yeast were constructed for each member of the pathway and the ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous nucleotide substitution rates (dN/dS) was estimated for each enzyme from S. cerevisiae and closely related species. We found a positive relationship between the influence that each enzyme has on pathway function and its selective constraint. We expect this trend to be locally present for enzymes that have pathway control, but over longer evolutionary timescales we expect that mutation-selection balance may change the enzymes that have pathway control.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,818
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,605
of 295,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#62
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 295,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.