| Title |
Melanosomes or Microbes: Testing an Alternative Hypothesis for the Origin of Microbodies in Fossil Feathers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep04233 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison E. Moyer, Wenxia Zheng, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Matthew C. Lamanna, Da-qing Li, Kenneth J. Lacovara, Mary H. Schweitzer |
| Abstract |
Microbodies associated with fossil feathers, originally attributed to microbial biofilm, have been reinterpreted as melanosomes: pigment-containing, eukaryotic organelles. This interpretation generated hypotheses regarding coloration in non-avian and avian dinosaurs. Because melanosomes and microbes overlap in size, distribution and morphology, we re-evaluate both hypotheses. We compare melanosomes within feathers of extant chickens with patterns induced by microbial overgrowth on the same feathers, using scanning (SEM), field emission (FESEM) and transmission (TEM) electron microscopy. Melanosomes are always internal, embedded in a morphologically distinct keratinous matrix. Conversely, microbes grow across the surface of feathers in continuous layers, more consistent with published images from fossil feathers. We compare our results to both published literature and new data from a fossil feather ascribed to Gansus yumenensis (ANSP 23403). 'Mouldic impressions' were observed in association with both the feather and sediment grains, supporting a microbial origin. We propose criteria for distinguishing between these two microbodies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
| Italy | 2 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 71% |
| Scientists | 8 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 35% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 28 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. 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 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#260,120
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#3,019
of 141,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,105
of 236,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#9
of 783 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 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 141,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 236,300 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 783 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 98% of its contemporaries.