↓ Skip to main content

Molecular systematics: A synthesis of the common methods and the state of knowledge

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 606)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Molecular systematics: A synthesis of the common methods and the state of knowledge
Published in
Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters, March 2010
DOI 10.2478/s11658-010-0010-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego San Mauro, Ainhoa Agorreta

Abstract

The comparative and evolutionary analysis of molecular data has allowed researchers to tackle biological questions that have long remained unresolved. The evolution of DNA and amino acid sequences can now be modeled accurately enough that the information conveyed can be used to reconstruct the past. The methods to infer phylogeny (the pattern of historical relationships among lineages of organisms and/or sequences) range from the simplest, based on parsimony, to more sophisticated and highly parametric ones based on likelihood and Bayesian approaches. In general, molecular systematics provides a powerful statistical framework for hypothesis testing and the estimation of evolutionary processes, including the estimation of divergence times among taxa. The field of molecular systematics has experienced a revolution in recent years, and, although there are still methodological problems and pitfalls, it has become an essential tool for the study of evolutionary patterns and processes at different levels of biological organization. This review aims to present a brief synthesis of the approaches and methodologies that are most widely used in the field of molecular systematics today, as well as indications of future trends and state-of-the-art approaches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
United States 4 2%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 207 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 20%
Researcher 37 16%
Student > Master 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 7%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 138 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 10%
Environmental Science 8 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 <1%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 44 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,982,883
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters
#9
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,986
of 102,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 102,334 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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