| Title |
Molecular phylogeny of elasmobranchs inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear markers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Biology Reports, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11033-013-2879-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Pavan-Kumar, P. Gireesh-Babu, P. P. Suresh Babu, A. K. Jaiswar, V. Hari Krishna, K. Pani Prasasd, Aparna Chaudhari, S. G. Raje, S. K. Chakraborty, Gopal Krishna, W. S. Lakra |
| Abstract |
The elasmobranchs (sharks, rays and skates) being the extant survivors of one of the earliest offshoots of the vertebrate evolutionary tree are good model organisms to study the primitive vertebrate conditions. They play a significant role in maintaining the ecological balance and have high economic value. Due to over-exploitation and illegal fishing worldwide, the elasmobranch stocks are being decimated at an alarming rate. Appropriate management measures are necessary for restoring depleted elasmobranch stocks. One approach for restoring stocks is implementation of conservation measures and these measures can be formulated effectively by knowing the evolutionary relationship among the elasmobranchs. In this study, a total of 30 species were chosen for molecular phylogeny studies using mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, 12S ribosomal RNA gene and nuclear Internal Transcribed Spacer 2. Among different genes, the combined dataset of COI and 12S rRNA resulted in a well resolved tree topology with significant bootstrap/posterior probabilities values. The results supported the reciprocal monophyly of sharks and batoids. Within Galeomorphii, Heterodontiformes (bullhead sharks) formed as a sister group to Lamniformes (mackerel sharks): Orectolobiformes (carpet sharks) and to Carcharhiniformes (ground sharks). Within batoids, the Myliobatiformes formed a monophyly group while Pristiformes (sawfishes) and Rhinobatiformes (guitar fishes) formed a sister group to all other batoids. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,398,722
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology Reports
#313
of 2,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,332
of 306,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology Reports
#7
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,881 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 306,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.