↓ Skip to main content

Mating system shifts and transposable element evolution in the plant genus Capsella

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2014
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Mating system shifts and transposable element evolution in the plant genus Capsella
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-602
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Ågren, Wei Wang, Daniel Koenig, Barbara Neuffer, Detlef Weigel, Stephen I Wright

Abstract

Despite having predominately deleterious fitness effects, transposable elements (TEs) are major constituents of eukaryote genomes in general and of plant genomes in particular. Although the proportion of the genome made up of TEs varies at least four-fold across plants, the relative importance of the evolutionary forces shaping variation in TE abundance and distributions across taxa remains unclear. Under several theoretical models, mating system plays an important role in governing the evolutionary dynamics of TEs. Here, we use the recently sequenced Capsella rubella reference genome and short-read whole genome sequencing of multiple individuals to quantify abundance, genome distributions, and population frequencies of TEs in three recently diverged species of differing mating system, two self-compatible species (C. rubella and C. orientalis) and their self-incompatible outcrossing relative, C. grandiflora.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
Netherlands 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Austria 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 72 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 36%
Researcher 23 27%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 73%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 14%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Unknown 9 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,022,422
of 13,855,981 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,035
of 8,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,055
of 188,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,855,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 188,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.