↓ Skip to main content

An improved taxonomic sampling is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving inter-families relationships in Caridean decapods

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
An improved taxonomic sampling is a necessary but not sufficient condition for resolving inter-families relationships in Caridean decapods
Published in
Genetica, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10709-014-9807-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Aznar-Cormano, J. Brisset, T.-Y. Chan, L. Corbari, N. Puillandre, J. Utge, M. Zbinden, D. Zuccon, S. Samadi

Abstract

During the past decade, a large number of multi-gene analyses aimed at resolving the phylogenetic relationships within Decapoda. However relationships among families, and even among sub-families, remain poorly defined. Most analyses used an incomplete and opportunistic sampling of species, but also an incomplete and opportunistic gene selection among those available for Decapoda. Here we test in the Caridea if improving the taxonomic coverage following the hierarchical scheme of the classification, as it is currently accepted, provides a better phylogenetic resolution for the inter-families relationships. The rich collections of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris are used for sampling as far as possible at least two species of two different genera for each family or subfamily. All potential markers are tested over this sampling. For some coding genes the amplification success varies greatly among taxa and the phylogenetic signal is highly saturated. This result probably explains the taxon-heterogeneity among previously published studies. The analysis is thus restricted to the genes homogeneously amplified over the whole sampling. Thanks to the taxonomic sampling scheme the monophyly of most families is confirmed. However the genes commonly used in Decapoda appear non-adapted for clarifying inter-families relationships, which remain poorly resolved. Genome-wide analyses, like transcriptome-based exon capture facilitated by the new generation sequencing methods might provide a sounder approach to resolve deep and rapid radiations like the Caridea.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 29%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Environmental Science 6 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 19%
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 26 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,950,322
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#128
of 713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,405
of 359,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 359,550 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.