↓ Skip to main content

Bio.Phylo: A unified toolkit for processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic trees in Biopython

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
233 Mendeley
citeulike
12 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.
Article details
Title
Bio.Phylo: A unified toolkit for processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic trees in Biopython
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-209
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Ongoing innovation in phylogenetics and evolutionary biology has been accompanied by a proliferation of software tools, data formats, analytical techniques and web servers. This brings with it the challenge of integrating phylogenetic and other related biological data found in a wide variety of formats, and underlines the need for reusable software that can read, manipulate and transform this information into the various forms required to build computational pipelines.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
South Africa 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 211 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 54 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 22%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 45 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 103 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 17%
Computer Science 19 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 50 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 14 November 2025.
All research outputs
#2,282,614
of 32,257,765 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#394
of 8,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,987
of 212,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#5
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,257,765 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 212,512 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 95% of its contemporaries.