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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Phylogenetic incongruence inferred with two mitochondrial genes in Mepraia spp. and Triatoma eratyrusiformis (Hemiptera, Reduviidae)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics and Molecular Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1415-475738320140301 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ricardo Campos-Soto, Fernando Torres-Pérez, Aldo Solari |
| Abstract |
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is widely used to clarify phylogenetic relationships among and within species, and to determine population structure. Due to the linked nature of mtDNA genes it is expected that different genes will show similar results. Phylogenetic incongruence using mtDNA genes may result from processes such as heteroplasmy, nuclear integration of mitochondrial genes, polymerase errors, contamination, and recombination. In this study we used sequences from two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase subunit I) from the wild vectors of Chagas disease, Triatoma eratyrusiformis and Mepraia species to test for topological congruence. The results showed some cases of phylogenetic incongruence due to misplacement of four haplotypes of four individuals. We discuss the possible causes of such incongruence and suggest that the explanation is an intra-individual variation likely due to heteroplasmy. This phenomenon is an independent evidence of common ancestry between these taxa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 64% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#647
of 771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,060
of 277,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 771 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.