↓ Skip to main content

Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
18 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
289 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
364 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2015
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1503453112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan V. Whelan, Kevin M. Kocot, Leonid L. Moroz, Kenneth M. Halanych

Abstract

Elucidating relationships among early animal lineages has been difficult, and recent phylogenomic analyses place Ctenophora sister to all other extant animals, contrary to the traditional view of Porifera as the earliest-branching animal lineage. To date, phylogenetic support for either ctenophores or sponges as sister to other animals has been limited and inconsistent among studies. Lack of agreement among phylogenomic analyses using different data and methods obscures how complex traits, such as epithelia, neurons, and muscles evolved. A consensus view of animal evolution will not be accepted until datasets and methods converge on a single hypothesis of early metazoan relationships and putative sources of systematic error (e.g., long-branch attraction, compositional bias, poor model choice) are assessed. Here, we investigate possible causes of systematic error by expanding taxon sampling with eight novel transcriptomes, strictly enforcing orthology inference criteria, and progressively examining potential causes of systematic error while using both maximum-likelihood with robust data partitioning and Bayesian inference with a site-heterogeneous model. We identified ribosomal protein genes as possessing a conflicting signal compared with other genes, which caused some past studies to infer ctenophores and cnidarians as sister. Importantly, biases resulting from elevated compositional heterogeneity or elevated substitution rates are ruled out. Placement of ctenophores as sister to all other animals, and sponge monophyly, are strongly supported under multiple analyses, herein.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 364 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 339 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 24%
Student > Bachelor 56 15%
Student > Master 52 14%
Researcher 51 14%
Other 18 5%
Other 63 17%
Unknown 38 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 202 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 65 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 4%
Environmental Science 11 3%
Neuroscience 10 3%
Other 17 5%
Unknown 45 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#914,665
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#14,366
of 103,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,018
of 280,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#209
of 930 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 280,184 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 930 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.