↓ Skip to main content

Monophyly of Lampreys and Hagfishes Supported by Nuclear DNA–Coded Genes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
23 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Monophyly of Lampreys and Hagfishes Supported by Nuclear DNA–Coded Genes
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, December 1999
DOI 10.1007/pl00006595
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shigehiro Kuraku, Daisuke Hoshiyama, Kazutaka Katoh, Hiroshi Suga, Takashi Miyata

Abstract

The phylogenetic position of hagfishes in vertebrate evolution is currently controversial. The 18S and 28S rRNA trees support the monophyly of hagfishes and lampreys. In contrast, the mitochondrial DNAs suggest the close association of lampreys and gnathostomes. To clarify this controversial issue, we have conducted cloning and sequencing of the four nuclear DNA-coded single-copy genes encoding the triose phosphate isomerase, calreticulin, and the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II and III. Based on these proteins, together with the Mn superoxide dismutase for which hagfish and lamprey sequences are available in database, phylogenetic trees have been inferred by the maximum likelihood (ML) method of protein phylogeny. It was shown that all the five proteins prefer the monophyletic tree of cyclostomes, and the total log-likelihood of the five proteins significantly supports the cyclostome monophyly at the level of +/-1 SE. The ML trees of aldolase family comprising three nonallelic isoforms and the complement component group comprising C3, C4, and C5, both of which diverged during vertebrate evolution by gene duplications, also suggest the cyclostome monophyly.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Portugal 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 52 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 19%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,183,130
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#66
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,821
of 108,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 108,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
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 all of them