↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Article details
Title
SIGN EPISTASIS LIMITS EVOLUTIONARY TRADE‐OFFS AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SINGLE‐ AND MULTI‐CARBON METABOLISM IN METHYLOBACTERIUM EXTORQUENS AM1
Published in
Evolution, November 2013
DOI 10.1111/evo.12301
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Adaptation of one set of traits is often accompanied by attenuation of traits important in other selective environments, leading to fitness trade-offs. The mechanisms that either promote or prevent the emergence of trade-offs remain largely unknown, and are difficult to discern in most systems. Here, we investigate the basis of trade-offs that emerged during experimental evolution of Methylobacterium extorquens AM1 to distinct growth substrates. After 1500 generations of adaptation to a multi-carbon substrate, succinate (S), many lineages had lost the ability to use one-carbon compounds such as methanol (M), generating a mixture of M(+) and M(-) evolved phenotypes. We show that trade-offs in M(-) strains consistently arise via antagonistic pleiotropy through recurrent selection for loss-of-function mutations to ftfL (formate-tetrahydrofolate ligase), which improved growth on S while simultaneously eliminating growth on M. But if loss of FtfL was beneficial, why were M trade-offs not found in all populations? We discovered that eliminating FtfL was not universally beneficial on S, as it was neutral or even deleterious in certain evolved lineages that remained M(+) . This suggests that sign epistasis with earlier arising mutations prevented the emergence of mutations that drove trade-offs through antagonistic pleiotropy, limiting the evolution of metabolic specialists in some populations.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 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 %
Germany 2 6%
United States 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 27 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 November 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Evolution
#4,889
of 5,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,880
of 315,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution
#43
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 315,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.