↓ Skip to main content

Smelt was the likely beneficiary of an antifreeze gene laterally transferred between fishes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Smelt was the likely beneficiary of an antifreeze gene laterally transferred between fishes
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurie A Graham, Jieying Li, William S Davidson, Peter L Davies

Abstract

Type II antifreeze protein (AFP) from the rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax, is a calcium-dependent C-type lectin homolog, similar to the AFPs from herring and sea raven. While C-type lectins are ubiquitous, type II AFPs are only found in a few species in three widely separated branches of teleost fishes. Furthermore, several other non-homologous AFPs are found in intervening species. We have previously postulated that this sporadic distribution has resulted from lateral gene transfer. The alternative hypothesis, that the AFP evolved from a lectin present in a shared ancestor and that this gene was lost in most species, is not favored because both the exon and intron sequences are highly conserved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
Japan 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 47 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 20%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 05 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,228,857
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#282
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,307
of 190,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#4
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 190,777 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.