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 |
On the molecular mechanism of GC content variation among eubacterial genomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Direct, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6150-7-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hao Wu, Zhang Zhang, Songnian Hu, Jun Yu |
| Abstract |
As a key parameter of genome sequence variation, the GC content of bacterial genomes has been investigated for over half a century, and many hypotheses have been put forward to explain this GC content variation and its relationship to other fundamental processes. Previously, we classified eubacteria into dnaE-based groups (the dimeric combination of DNA polymerase III alpha subunits), according to a hypothesis where GC content variation is essentially governed by genome replication and DNA repair mechanisms. Further investigation led to the discovery that two major mutator genes, polC and dnaE2, may be responsible for genomic GC content variation. Consequently, an in-depth analysis was conducted to evaluate various potential intrinsic and extrinsic factors in association with GC content variation among eubacterial genomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Belgium | 2 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 195 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 60 | 28% |
| Researcher | 41 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 109 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 47 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,146,439
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#94
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,048
of 243,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#12
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 243,229 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.