↓ Skip to main content

Discrepancy between Cranial and DNA Data of Early Americans: Implications for American Peopling

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2009
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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.
Title
Discrepancy between Cranial and DNA Data of Early Americans: Implications for American Peopling
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0005746
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Ivan Perez, Valeria Bernal, Paula N. Gonzalez, Marina Sardi, Gustavo G. Politis

Abstract

Currently, one of the major debates about the American peopling focuses on the number of populations that originated the biological diversity found in the continent during the Holocene. The studies of craniometric variation in American human remains dating from that period have shown morphological differences between the earliest settlers of the continent and some of the later Amerindian populations. This led some investigators to suggest that these groups--known as Paleomericans and Amerindians respectively--may have arisen from two biologically different populations. On the other hand, most DNA studies performed over extant and ancient populations suggest a single migration of a population from Northeast Asia. Comparing craniometric and mtDNA data of diachronic samples from East Central Argentina dated from 8,000 to 400 years BP, we show here that even when the oldest individuals display traits attributable to Paleoamerican crania, they present the same mtDNA haplogroups as later populations with Amerindian morphology. A possible explanation for these results could be that the craniofacial differentiation was a local phenomenon resulting from random (i.e. genetic drift) and non-random factors (e.g. selection and plasticity). Local processes of morphological differentiation in America are a probable scenario if we take into consideration the rapid peopling and the great ecological diversity of this continent; nevertheless we will discuss alternative explanations as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 5 4%
United States 3 3%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 106 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Researcher 25 21%
Student > Master 15 13%
Professor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 45%
Social Sciences 29 24%
Arts and Humanities 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 9 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,157,811
of 24,007,780 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#27,113
of 206,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,506
of 117,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#82
of 506 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,007,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 117,628 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 506 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.