↓ Skip to main content

Gene duplications contribute to the overrepresentation of interactions between proteins of a similar age

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Gene duplications contribute to the overrepresentation of interactions between proteins of a similar age
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-99
Pubmed ID
Authors

Like Fokkens, Paulien Hogeweg, Berend Snel

Abstract

The study of biological networks and how they have evolved is fundamental to our understanding of the cell. By investigating how proteins of different ages are connected in the protein interaction network, one can infer how that network has expanded in evolution, without the need for explicit reconstruction of ancestral networks. Studies that implement this approach show that proteins are often connected to proteins of a similar age, suggesting a simultaneous emergence of interacting proteins. There are several theories explaining this phenomenon, but despite the importance of gene duplication in genome evolution, none consider protein family dynamics as a contributing factor.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 4%
Luxembourg 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 23 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 74%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Mathematics 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,762,633
of 12,373,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1,790
of 2,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,213
of 128,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 128,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.