↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 tweeter
4 Facebook pages


26 Dimensions

Readers on

44 Mendeley
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.
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, January 2002
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-2-12
Pubmed ID

Vaughn S Cooper


Twelve populations of the bacterium, Escherichia coli, adapted to a simple, glucose-limited, laboratory environment over 10,000 generations. As a consequence, these populations tended to lose functionality on alternative resources. I examined whether these populations in turn became inferior competitors in four alternative environments. These experiments are among the first to quantify and compare dimensions of the fundamental and realized niches. Three clones were isolated from each of the twelve populations after 10,000 generations of evolution. Direct competition between these clones and the ancestor in the selective environment revealed average fitness improvements of approximately 50%. When grown in the wells of Biolog plates, however, evolved clones grew 25% worse on average than the ancestor on a variety of different carbon sources. Next, I competed each evolved population versus the ancestor in four foreign environments (10-fold higher and lower glucose concentration, added bile salts, and dilute LB media). Surprisingly, nearly all populations were more fit than the ancestor in each foreign environment, though the margin of improvement was least in the most different environment. Most populations also evolved increased sensitivity to novobiocin. Reduced functionality on numerous carbon sources suggested that the fundamental niche of twelve E. coli populations had narrowed after adapting to a specific laboratory environment. However, in spite of these results, the same populations were competitively superior in four novel environments. These findings suggest that adaptation to certain dimensions of the environment may compensate for other functional losses and apparently enhance the realized niche.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 27%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 18%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 1 2%

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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
of 2,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 121,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 121,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.