↓ Skip to main content

Expanding the view on the evolution of the nematode dauer signalling pathways: refinement through gene gain and pathway co-option

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
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
Expanding the view on the evolution of the nematode dauer signalling pathways: refinement through gene gain and pathway co-option
Published in
BMC Genomics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2770-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aude Gilabert, David M. Curran, Simon C. Harvey, James D. Wasmuth

Abstract

Signalling pathways underlie development, behaviour and pathology. To understand patterns in the evolution of signalling pathways, we undertook a comprehensive investigation of the pathways that control the switch between growth and developmentally quiescent dauer in 24 species of nematodes spanning the phylum. Our analysis of 47 genes across these species indicates that the pathways and their interactions are not conserved throughout the Nematoda. For example, the TGF-β pathway was co-opted into dauer control relatively late in a lineage that led to the model species Caenorhabditis elegans. We show molecular adaptations described in C. elegans that are restricted to its genus or even just to the species. Similarly, our analyses both identify species where particular genes have been lost and situations where apparently incorrect orthologues have been identified. Our analysis also highlights the difficulties of working with genome sequences from non-model species as reliance on the published gene models would have significantly restricted our understanding of how signalling pathways evolve. Our approach therefore offers a robust standard operating procedure for genomic comparisons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#5,621,901
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#2,296
of 10,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,292
of 352,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#52
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,666 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 352,119 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.