↓ Skip to main content

Mitochondrial data are not suitable for resolving placental mammal phylogeny

Overview of attention for article published in Mammalian Genome, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Mitochondrial data are not suitable for resolving placental mammal phylogeny
Published in
Mammalian Genome, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00335-014-9544-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire C. Morgan, Christopher J. Creevey, Mary J. O’Connell

Abstract

Mitochondrial data have traditionally been used in reconstructing a variety of species phylogenies. The low rates of recombination and thorough characterization of mitochondrial data across vertebrate species make it a particularly attractive phylogenetic marker. The relatively low number of fully sequenced mammal genomes and the lack of extensive sampling within Superorders have posed a serious problem for reaching agreement on the placement mammal species. The use of mitochondrial data sequences from large numbers of mammals could serve to circumvent the taxon-sampling deficit. Here we assess the suitability of mitochondrial data as a phylogenetic marker in mammal phylogenetics. MtDNA datasets of mammal origin have been filtered as follows: (i) we have sampled sparsely across the phylogenetic tree, (ii) we have constrained our sampling to genes with high taxon coverage, (iii) we have categorised rates across sites in a phylogeny independent manner and have removed fast evolving sites, and (iv), we have sampled from very shallow divergence times to reduce phylogenetic conflict. However, topologies obtained using these filters are not consistent with previous studies and are discordant across different genes. Individual mitochondrial genes, and indeed all mitochondrial genes analysed as a supermatrix, resulted in poor resolution of the species phylogeny. Overall, our study highlights the limitations of mitochondrial data, not only for resolving deep divergences and but also for shallow divergences in the mammal phylogeny.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
New Zealand 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 9 24%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Mammalian Genome
#937
of 1,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,878
of 251,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mammalian Genome
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 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 1,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 251,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.