↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of the androgen-induced male phenotype

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2017
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Evolution of the androgen-induced male phenotype
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00359-017-1215-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Fuxjager, Meredith C. Miles, Barney A. Schlinger

Abstract

The masculine reproductive phenotype varies significantly across vertebrates. As a result, biologists have long recognized that many of the mechanisms that support these phenotypes-particularly the androgenic system-is evolutionarily labile, and thus susceptible to the effects of selection for different traits. However, exactly how androgenic signaling systems vary in a way which results in dramatically different functional outputs, remain largely unclear. We explore this topic here by outlining four key-but non-mutually exclusive-hypotheses that propose how the mechanisms of androgenic signaling might change over time to potentiate the emergence of phenotypical variation in masculine behavior and physiology. We anchor this framework in a review of our own studies of a tropical bird called the golden-collared manakin (Manacus vitellinus), which has evolved an exaggerated acrobatic courtship display that is heavily androgen-dependent. The result is an example of how the cellular basis of androgenic action can be modified to support a unique reproductive repertoire. We end this review by highlighting a broad pathway forward to further pursue the intricate ways by which the mechanisms of hormone action evolve to support processes of adaptation and animal design.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 55%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,389,002
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#972
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,576
of 326,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 326,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.