↓ Skip to main content

Single-copy nuclear genes resolve the phylogeny of the holometabolous insects

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, June 2009
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
240 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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
Single-copy nuclear genes resolve the phylogeny of the holometabolous insects
Published in
BMC Biology, June 2009
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-7-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian M Wiegmann, Michelle D Trautwein, Jung-Wook Kim, Brian K Cassel, Matthew A Bertone, Shaun L Winterton, David K Yeates

Abstract

Evolutionary relationships among the 11 extant orders of insects that undergo complete metamorphosis, called Holometabola, remain either unresolved or contentious, but are extremely important as a context for accurate comparative biology of insect model organisms. The most phylogenetically enigmatic holometabolan insects are Strepsiptera or twisted wing parasites, whose evolutionary relationship to any other insect order is unconfirmed. They have been controversially proposed as the closest relatives of the flies, based on rDNA, and a possible homeotic transformation in the common ancestor of both groups that would make the reduced forewings of Strepsiptera homologous to the reduced hindwings of Diptera. Here we present evidence from nucleotide sequences of six single-copy nuclear protein coding genes used to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships and estimate evolutionary divergence times for all holometabolan orders.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
Germany 9 3%
United Kingdom 6 2%
Brazil 4 1%
Japan 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 268 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 25%
Researcher 65 21%
Student > Master 52 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 9%
Professor 18 6%
Other 55 18%
Unknown 12 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 221 73%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 10%
Environmental Science 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 1%
Computer Science 3 <1%
Other 16 5%
Unknown 21 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,278,700
of 18,119,184 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#394
of 1,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,467
of 226,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,119,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 226,046 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.