↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of 16S and COX1 genes mitochondrial regions and their usefulness for genetic analysis of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae)

Overview of attention for article published in Biomédica, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Comparison of 16S and COX1 genes mitochondrial regions and their usefulness for genetic analysis of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae)
Published in
Biomédica, May 2016
DOI 10.7705/biomedica.v36i2.3116
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis Enrique Paternina, Daniel Verbel-Vergara, Eduar Elías Bejarano

Abstract

In recent decades the analysis of mitochondrial genes has been used for population and phylogenetic studies of ticks allowing many advances in their systematics. Mitochondrial ribosomal 16S (16S) subunit is one of the most frequently used among those genes available for tick analysis, whereas cytochrome oxidase gene 1 (COX1) has recently been used and proposed as an alternative to the traditional 16S gene marker. Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of 16S and COX1 in genetic studies of ticks by analyzing sequences of three species commonly found in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Results: The analysis of both genes sequences allowed us to identify the three species with high levels of confidence and interspecific genetic divergence (19-22%), although only COX1 allowed us to detect intraspecific genetic variability (up to ~0.8%). A substitution saturation analysis indicated that the 16S gene was not saturated with transitions while the COX1 gene showed saturation distances starting at ~17%. Conclusion: Our results indicated that the 16S gene seems to have better features for interspecific phylogenetic analyses because of its high level of genetic divergence and low saturation pattern, while the COX1 gene appears to be more useful for intraspecific genetic variability studies. However, as our study was conducted at a local scale, future studies at different biogeographical scales would help to establish its usefulness in wider and more complex scenarios.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Costa Rica 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 26%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
#8,476,767
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Biomédica
#274
of 848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,889
of 348,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomédica
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 848 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 348,587 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.