↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Y chromosomal timescale in human demographic and lineage dating

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Genetics, September 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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Evaluating the Y chromosomal timescale in human demographic and lineage dating
Published in
Investigative Genetics, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2041-2223-5-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chuan-Chao Wang, M Thomas P Gilbert, Li Jin, Hui Li

Abstract

Y chromosome is a superb tool for inferring human evolution and recent demographic history from a paternal perspective. However, Y chromosomal substitution rates obtained using different modes of calibration vary considerably, and have produced disparate reconstructions of human history. Here, we discuss how substitution rate and date estimates are affected by the choice of different calibration points. We argue that most Y chromosomal substitution rates calculated to date have shortcomings, including a reliance on the ambiguous human-chimpanzee divergence time, insufficient sampling of deep-rooting pedigrees, and using inappropriate founding migrations, although the rates obtained from a single pedigree or calibrated with the peopling of the Americas seem plausible. We highlight the need for using more deep-rooting pedigrees and ancient genomes with reliable dates to improve the rate estimation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 42 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 22%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 08 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,556,889
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
#30
of 97 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,581
of 238,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 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 97 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 238,994 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.