↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Neanderthal Genetics and Phylogeny

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 2006
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
13 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating Neanderthal Genetics and Phylogeny
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00239-006-0017-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin B. Hebsgaard, Carsten Wiuf, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Henrik Glenner, Eske Willerslev

Abstract

The retrieval of Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalsensis) mitochondrial DNA is thought to be among the most significant ancient DNA contributions to date, allowing conflicting hypotheses on modern human (Homo sapiens) evolution to be tested directly. Recently, however, both the authenticity of the Neanderthal sequences and their phylogenetic position outside contemporary human diversity have been questioned. Using Bayesian inference and the largest dataset to date, we find strong support for a monophyletic Neanderthal clade outside the diversity of contemporary humans, in agreement with the expectations of the Out-of-Africa replacement model of modern human origin. From average pairwise sequence differences, we obtain support for claims that the first published Neanderthal sequence may include errors due to postmortem damage in the template molecules for PCR. In contrast, we find that recent results implying that the Neanderthal sequences are products of PCR artifacts are not well supported, suffering from inadequate experimental design and a presumably high percentage (>68%) of chimeric sequences due to "jumping PCR" events.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Germany 3 3%
Portugal 2 2%
Finland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 97 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 19%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 14 12%
Professor 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 33 28%
Unknown 5 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 13%
Arts and Humanities 12 10%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 6%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 5 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,736,845
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#186
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,341
of 157,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 157,076 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them