↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenomics Revives Traditional Views on Deep Animal Relationships

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, April 2009
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
wikipedia
28 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
612 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
735 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Phylogenomics Revives Traditional Views on Deep Animal Relationships
Published in
Current Biology, April 2009
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hervé Philippe, Romain Derelle, Philippe Lopez, Kerstin Pick, Carole Borchiellini, Nicole Boury-Esnault, Jean Vacelet, Emmanuelle Renard, Evelyn Houliston, Eric Quéinnec, Corinne Da Silva, Patrick Wincker, Hervé Le Guyader, Sally Leys, Daniel J. Jackson, Fabian Schreiber, Dirk Erpenbeck, Burkhard Morgenstern, Gert Wörheide, Michaël Manuel

Abstract

The origin of many of the defining features of animal body plans, such as symmetry, nervous system, and the mesoderm, remains shrouded in mystery because of major uncertainty regarding the emergence order of the early branching taxa: the sponge groups, ctenophores, placozoans, cnidarians, and bilaterians. The "phylogenomic" approach [1] has recently provided a robust picture for intrabilaterian relationships [2, 3] but not yet for more early branching metazoan clades. We have assembled a comprehensive 128 gene data set including newly generated sequence data from ctenophores, cnidarians, and all four main sponge groups. The resulting phylogeny yields two significant conclusions reviving old views that have been challenged in the molecular era: (1) that the sponges (Porifera) are monophyletic and not paraphyletic as repeatedly proposed [4-9], thus undermining the idea that ancestral metazoans had a sponge-like body plan; (2) that the most likely position for the ctenophores is together with the cnidarians in a "coelenterate" clade. The Porifera and the Placozoa branch basally with respect to a moderately supported "eumetazoan" clade containing the three taxa with nervous system and muscle cells (Cnidaria, Ctenophora, and Bilateria). This new phylogeny provides a stimulating framework for exploring the important changes that shaped the body plans of the early diverging phyla.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 735 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 21 3%
Brazil 12 2%
United Kingdom 10 1%
Germany 8 1%
Spain 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Other 14 2%
Unknown 655 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 152 21%
Researcher 140 19%
Student > Master 102 14%
Student > Bachelor 81 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 44 6%
Other 121 16%
Unknown 95 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 447 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 82 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 5%
Environmental Science 20 3%
Computer Science 12 2%
Other 32 4%
Unknown 108 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 07 June 2023.
All research outputs
#682,271
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#2,335
of 14,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,536
of 106,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#9
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 14,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 106,933 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 91 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 90% of its contemporaries.