↓ Skip to main content

On the molecular mechanism of GC content variation among eubacterial genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 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
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, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
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 2%
Unknown 175 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 28%
Researcher 39 20%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 19 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 106 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 22%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 21 11%

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
#1,729,738
of 18,796,975 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#83
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,388
of 235,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#14
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,796,975 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 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 235,388 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 32 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 56% of its contemporaries.