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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Study of Y-Chromosome Microsatellite Variation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparison between F ST and R ST Genetic Distances
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Biology, January 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1353/hub.2003.0041 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandra Caglià, Sergio Tofanelli, Valentina Coia, Ilaria Boschi, Marina Pescarmona, Gabriella Spedini, Vincenzo Pascali, Giorgio Paoli, Giovanni Destro-Bisol |
| Abstract |
Seven Y-chromosome microsatellite loci (DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393) were analyzed in three populations from sub-Saharan Africa: the Bamileke and Ewondo populations from Cameroon and the Hutu from Rwanda. Complete typing was obtained for 112 individuals, and a total of 53 different haplotypes was observed. The single-locus gene diversity, averaged across populations, ranges from 0.100 for the DYS392 locus to 0.610 for the DYS389I locus. The haplotype diversity ranges from 0.832 (Ewondo) to 0.965 (Hutu), with an intermediate value of 0.918 in the Bamileke. The diversity among Bamileke, Ewondo, Hutu, and other sub-Saharan populations selected from the literature was analyzed using both a classical (F(ST)) and a stepwise-based (R(ST)) genetic distance method. The pattern of interpopulational diversity based on F(ST) was congruent with anthropological knowledge, while that based on R(ST) revealed unexpected and unconvincing population affinities. From a practical point of view, our study indicates that Y-chromosome microsatellite data may provide useful information for analyses of interpopulational diversity among sub-Saharan populations if an adequate number of loci and individuals along with an appropriate genetic distance method are used. On a theoretical ground, we propose that the lesser performance of R(ST) compared to F(ST) could be explained by the important role played by genetic drift in shaping the relationships among examined populations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 47% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 20% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 80% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
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 08 September 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Biology
#162
of 490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,675
of 136,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Biology
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 136,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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.