↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying the coevolutionary potential of multistep immune defenses

Overview of attention for article published in Evolution, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Article details
Title
Quantifying the coevolutionary potential of multistep immune defenses
Published in
Evolution, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/evo.12863
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Coevolutionary models often assume host infection by parasites depends on a single bout of molecular recognition. As detailed immunological studies accumulate, however, it becomes increasingly apparent that the outcome of host-parasite interactions more generally depends on complex multiple step infection processes. For example, in plant and animal innate immunity, recognition steps are followed by downstream effector steps that kill recognized parasites, with the outcome depending on an escalatory molecular arms race. Here, we explore the consequences of such multi-step infection processes for coevolution using a genetically explicit model. Model analyses reveal that polymorphism is much greater at recognition loci than effector loci, that host-genotype by parasite-genotype (Gh x Gp ) interactions are larger for the recognition step, and that the recognition step contributes more to local adaptation than the effector step. These results suggest that (1) local adaptation is more likely when fitness measures are related to recognition versus downstream effectors, (2) effector loci, while mechanistically important, are less likely to harbor the Gh x Gp variation that fuels coevolution, and (3) recognition loci are better candidates for genomic hotspots of coevolution. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 7 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 32 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 %
Poland 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 27 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 34%
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 1 3%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 72%
Materials Science 1 3%
Unknown 8 25%
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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,861,916
of 26,796,023 outputs
Outputs from Evolution
#2,504
of 6,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,019
of 410,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution
#36
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,796,023 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 410,919 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.