↓ Skip to main content

Response to Comment on “A promiscuous intermediate underlies the evolution of LEAFY DNA binding specificity”

Overview of attention for article published in Science, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Response to Comment on “A promiscuous intermediate underlies the evolution of LEAFY DNA binding specificity”
Published in
Science, February 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1256011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel F Brockington, Edwige Moyroud, Camille Sayou, Marie Monniaux, Max H Nanao, Emmanuel Thévenon, Hicham Chahtane, Norman Warthmann, Michael Melkonian, Yong Zhang, Gane Ka-Shu Wong, Detlef Weigel, Renaud Dumas, François Parcy

Abstract

Brunkard et al. propose that the identification of novel LEAFY sequences contradicts our model of evolution through promiscuous intermediates. Based on the debate surrounding land plant phylogeny and on our analysis of these interesting novel sequences, we explain why there is no solid evidence to disprove our model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 34%
Researcher 10 26%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Computer Science 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,106,528
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from Science
#46,893
of 80,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,921
of 362,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#781
of 1,138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 362,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.