↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Phylogenetic Relationships among Galliformes: A Multigene Phylogeny with Expanded Taxon Sampling in Phasianidae

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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.
Title
Assessing Phylogenetic Relationships among Galliformes: A Multigene Phylogeny with Expanded Taxon Sampling in Phasianidae
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064312
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Wang, Rebecca T. Kimball, Edward L. Braun, Bin Liang, Zhengwang Zhang

Abstract

Galliform birds (relatives of the chicken and turkey) have attracted substantial attention due to their importance to society and value as model systems. This makes understanding the evolutionary history of Galliformes, especially the species-rich family Phasianidae, particularly interesting and important for comparative studies in this group. Previous studies have differed in their conclusions regarding galliform phylogeny. Some of these studies have suggested that specific clades within this order underwent rapid radiations, potentially leading to the observed difficulty in resolving their phylogenetic relationships. Here we presented analyses of six nuclear intron sequences and two mitochondrial regions, an amount of sequence data larger than many previous studies, and expanded taxon sampling by collecting data from 88 galliform species and four anseriform outgroups. Our results corroborated recent studies describing relationships among the major families, and provided further evidence that the traditional division of the largest family, the Phasianidae into two major groups ("pheasants" and "partridges") is not valid. Within the Phasianidae, relationships among many genera have varied among studies and there has been little consensus for the placement of many taxa. Using this large dataset, with substantial sampling within the Phasianidae, we obtained strong bootstrap support to confirm some previously hypothesized relationships and we were able to exclude others. In addition, we added the first nuclear sequence data for the partridge and quail genera Ammoperdix, Caloperdix, Excalfactoria, and Margaroperdix, placing these taxa in the galliform tree of life with confidence. Despite the novel insights obtained by combining increased sampling of taxa and loci, our results suggest that additional data collection will be necessary to solve the remaining uncertainties.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 26%
Student > Master 11 12%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Unspecified 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,500,406
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#19,484
of 194,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,371
of 194,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#501
of 4,745 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 194,723 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 4,745 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.