↓ Skip to main content

Slow but not low: genomic comparisons reveal slower evolutionary rate and higher dN/dS in conifers compared to angiosperms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Slow but not low: genomic comparisons reveal slower evolutionary rate and higher dN/dS in conifers compared to angiosperms
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Buschiazzo, Carol Ritland, Jörg Bohlmann, Kermit Ritland

Abstract

Comparative genomics can inform us about the processes of mutation and selection across diverse taxa. Among seed plants, gymnosperms have been lacking in genomic comparisons. Recent EST and full-length cDNA collections for two conifers, Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), together with full genome sequences for two angiosperms, Arabidopsis thaliana and poplar (Populus trichocarpa), offer an opportunity to infer the evolutionary processes underlying thousands of orthologous protein-coding genes in gymnosperms compared with an angiosperm orthologue set.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 1%
Norway 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 188 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 24%
Researcher 46 22%
Student > Master 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 7%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 27 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 134 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 12%
Environmental Science 7 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Engineering 2 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 28 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 December 2012.
All research outputs
#3,702,366
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#963
of 3,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,621
of 257,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 257,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.