↓ Skip to main content

The Non-Biological Meaning of the Term “Prokaryote” and Its Implications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
The Non-Biological Meaning of the Term “Prokaryote” and Its Implications
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00239-014-9662-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Massimo Di Giulio

Abstract

The meaning of the term prokaryote is critically analyzed. The conclusion reached is that this term does not have a real biological sense, above all because we are not able to link to this term a specific biological characteristic, i.e. the hypothetical evolutionary stage of the prokaryote would seem to have been unable to result in a completed cell, which could possibly be due to the recapitulation of the fundamental characteristics that might have been common to bacteria and archaea. This would define a biological immaturity of this evolutionary stage because otherwise we would have found traits already clearly defined at this level of cellular evolution. Therefore, the lack of well-defined traits characterising the prokaryote would seem to imply an evolutionary stage still in rapid evolution, i.e. with a tempo and a mode of evolution typical of a progenote. This in turn would seem to imply that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) has been a progenote at least when the domains of life are only two-the bacterial and archaeal domains-because, in this case, the LUCA's node should coincide with that of prokaryote on the tree of life. Instead, if the root of the tree of life would be placed in the bacterial domain or in the archaeal one, we might again, very likely, have a LUCA with a character of progenote being, under these conditions, the LUCA a prokaryote-like organism.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 71%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
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 13 January 2015.
All research outputs
#17,282,814
of 25,388,177 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1,191
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,012
of 359,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,177 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 359,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.