↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor

Overview of attention for article published in Science, December 2014
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor
Published in
Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1126/science.1254390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert W Meredith, Guojie Zhang, M Thomas P Gilbert, Erich D Jarvis, Mark S Springer

Abstract

Edentulism, the absence of teeth, has evolved convergently among vertebrates, including birds, turtles, and several lineages of mammals. Instead of teeth, modern birds (Neornithes) use a horny beak (rhamphotheca) and a muscular gizzard to acquire and process food. We performed comparative genomic analyses representing lineages of nearly all extant bird orders and recovered shared, inactivating mutations within genes expressed in both the enamel and dentin of teeth of other vertebrate species, indicating that the common ancestor of modern birds lacked mineralized teeth. We estimate that tooth loss, or at least the loss of enamel caps that provide the outer layer of mineralized teeth, occurred about 116 million years ago.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 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 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 259 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 23%
Researcher 50 18%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Master 32 12%
Professor 15 5%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 37 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 6%
Environmental Science 11 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 43 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 271. 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 May 2024.
All research outputs
#136,772
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from Science
#4,258
of 83,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,351
of 370,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#54
of 888 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 83,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 66.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 370,820 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 888 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.