↓ Skip to main content

Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus macaques

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus macaques
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep01042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren J. N. Brent, Sarah R. Heilbronner, Julie E. Horvath, Janis Gonzalez-Martinez, Angelina Ruiz-Lambides, Athy G. Robinson, J. H. Pate Skene, Michael L. Platt

Abstract

Sociality is believed to have evolved as a strategy for animals to cope with their environments. Yet the genetic basis of sociality remains unclear. Here we provide evidence that social network tendencies are heritable in a gregarious primate. The tendency for rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta, to be tied affiliatively to others via connections mediated by their social partners - analogous to friends of friends in people - demonstrated additive genetic variance. Affiliative tendencies were predicted by genetic variation at two loci involved in serotonergic signalling, although this result did not withstand correction for multiple tests. Aggressive tendencies were also heritable and were related to reproductive output, a fitness proxy. Our findings suggest that, like humans, the skills and temperaments that shape the formation of multi-agent relationships have a genetic basis in nonhuman primates, and, as such, begin to fill the gaps in our understanding of the genetic basis of sociality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 5 2%
Germany 3 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 188 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 29%
Researcher 40 19%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Unspecified 16 8%
Other 49 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 50%
Unspecified 33 16%
Psychology 17 8%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Other 32 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 26 December 2018.
All research outputs
#173,092
of 12,558,974 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#2,178
of 57,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,711
of 257,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#33
of 772 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,558,974 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 257,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 772 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.