↓ Skip to main content

Two or three domains: a new view of tree of life in the genomics era

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, February 2018
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Two or three domains: a new view of tree of life in the genomics era
Published in
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00253-018-8831-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhichao Zhou, Yang Liu, Meng Li, Ji-Dong Gu

Abstract

The deep phylogenetic topology of tree of life is in the center of a long-time dispute. The Woeseian three-domain tree theory, with the Eukarya evolving as a sister clade to Archaea, competes with the two-domain tree theory (the eocyte tree), with the Eukarya branched within Archaea. Revealed by the ongoing debate over the last three decades, sophisticated and proper phylogenetic methods should necessarily be paid with more emphasis, especially these are focusing on the compositional heterogeneity of sites and lineages, and the heterotachy issue. The newly emerging archaeal lineages with numerous eukaryotic-like features, such as membrane trafficking and cellular compartmentalization, are phylogenetically the closest to eukaryotes currently. These findings highlight the evolutionary history from an ancient archaeon to a more complex archaeon with protoeukaryotic-like features and complex cellular structures, thus providing clues to understand eukaryogenesis process. The increasing repertoire of precise genomic contents provides great advantages on understanding the deep phylogeny of tree of life and ancient evolutionary events on Eukarya branching process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Environmental Science 6 4%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,252,137
of 25,066,230 outputs
Outputs from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#169
of 8,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,649
of 335,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
#5
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,066,230 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,183 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 335,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.