↓ Skip to main content

On the genetic architecture of cytoplasmic incompatibility: inference from phenotypic data.

Overview of attention for article published in The American Naturalist, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
On the genetic architecture of cytoplasmic incompatibility: inference from phenotypic data.
Published in
The American Naturalist, July 2013
DOI 10.1086/670612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Igor Nor, Jan Engelstädter, Olivier Duron, Max Reuter, Marie-France Sagot, Sylvain Charlat

Abstract

Numerous insects carry intracellular bacteria that manipulate the insects' reproduction and thus facilitate their own spread. Cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) is a common form of such manipulation, where a (currently uncharacterized) bacterial modification of male sperm induces the early death of embryos unless the fertilized eggs carry the same bacteria, inherited from the mother. The death of uninfected embryos provides an indirect selective advantage to infected ones, thus enabling the spread of the bacteria. Here we use and expand recently developed algorithms to infer the genetic architecture underlying the complex incompatibility data from the mosquito Culex pipiens. We show that CI requires more genetic determinants than previously believed and that quantitative variation in gene products potentially contributes to the observed CI patterns. In line with population genetic theory of CI, our analysis suggests that toxin factors (those inducing embryo death) are present in fewer copies in the bacterial genomes than antitoxin factors (those ensuring that infected embryos survive). In combination with comparative genomics, our approach will provide helpful guidance to identify the genetic basis of CI and more generally of other toxin/antitoxin systems that can be conceptualized under the same framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 28%
Researcher 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 75%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Psychology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 July 2013.
All research outputs
#13,313,060
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#2,926
of 3,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,829
of 196,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#19
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 196,315 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.