| Title |
A comparative study of distant hybridization in plants and animals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-017-9094-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jie Chen, Mi Luo, Shengnan Li, Min Tao, Xiaolan Ye, Wei Duan, Chun Zhang, Qinbo Qin, Jun Xiao, Shaojun Liu |
| Abstract |
Distant hybridization refers to crosses between two different species, genera, or higher-ranking taxa, which can break species limits, increase genetic variation, and combine the biological characteristics of existing species. It is an important way of creating genetic variation, fertile strains, and excellent characteristics in new strains and populations. Combining analyses and summaries from many inter-related documents in plants and animals, both domestic and international, including examples and long-standing research on distant hybridization in fish from our laboratory, we summarize and compare the similarities and differences in plant and animal distant hybridization. In addition, we analyze and review the biological characteristics of their different ploidy progenies and the possible causes of disparity in survival rates. Mechanisms of sterility in animal and plant distant hybrids are also discussed, and research methods for the study of biological characteristics of hybrids, including morphology, cytology, and molecular cytogenetics are presented. This paper aims to provide comprehensive research materials and to systematically compare the general and specific characteristics of plant and animal hybrids with regards to reproduction, genetics, growth traits, and other biological characteristics. It is hoped that this paper will have great theoretical and practical significance for the study of genetic breeding and biological evolution of plant and animal distant hybridization. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,477,045
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#481
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,364
of 316,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#12
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 316,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 64% of its contemporaries.