↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Genetics, November 2006
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
84 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
citeulike
9 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity
Published in
PLoS Genetics, November 2006
DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020220
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Perspectives on the classification of eukaryotic diversity have changed rapidly in recent years, as the four eukaryotic groups within the five-kingdom classification--plants, animals, fungi, and protists--have been transformed through numerous permutations into the current system of six "supergroups." The intent of the supergroup classification system is to unite microbial and macroscopic eukaryotes based on phylogenetic inference. This supergroup approach is increasing in popularity in the literature and is appearing in introductory biology textbooks. We evaluate the stability and support for the current six-supergroup classification of eukaryotes based on molecular genealogies. We assess three aspects of each supergroup: (1) the stability of its taxonomy, (2) the support for monophyly (single evolutionary origin) in molecular analyses targeting a supergroup, and (3) the support for monophyly when a supergroup is included as an out-group in phylogenetic studies targeting other taxa. Our analysis demonstrates that supergroup taxonomies are unstable and that support for groups varies tremendously, indicating that the current classification scheme of eukaryotes is likely premature. We highlight several trends contributing to the instability and discuss the requirements for establishing robust clades within the eukaryotic tree of life.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Brazil 6 2%
Germany 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 266 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 74 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 18%
Student > Bachelor 32 10%
Student > Master 30 10%
Professor 23 7%
Other 55 18%
Unknown 38 12%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 185 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 10%
Environmental Science 14 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 2%
Computer Science 4 1%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 45 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 August 2026.
All research outputs
#5,473,242
of 32,030,936 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#3,437
of 9,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,692
of 116,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#14
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,030,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 116,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 71% of its contemporaries.