↓ Skip to main content

Inactivation dates of the human and guinea pig vitamin C genes

Overview of attention for article published in Genetica, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 712)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
patent
6 patents
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Inactivation dates of the human and guinea pig vitamin C genes
Published in
Genetica, December 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10709-010-9537-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Y. Lachapelle, Guy Drouin

Abstract

The capacity to biosynthesize ascorbic acid has been lost in a number of species including primates, guinea pigs, teleost fishes, bats, and birds. This inability results from mutations in the GLO gene coding for L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase, the enzyme responsible for catalyzing the last step in the vitamin C biosynthetic pathway. We analyzed available primate and rodent GLO gene sequences to determine their evolutionary history. We used a method based on sequence comparisons of lineages with and without functional GLO genes to calculate inactivation dates of 61 and 14 MYA for the primate and guinea pig genes, respectively. These estimates are consistent with previous phylogeny-based estimates. An analysis of transposable element distribution in the primate and rodent GLO sequences did not reveal conclusive evidence that illegitimate recombination between repeats has contributed to the loss of exons in the primate and guinea pig genes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 7 9%
Professor 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Chemistry 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 04 December 2023.
All research outputs
#688,659
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#5
of 712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,839
of 192,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 192,849 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.