| Title |
Analysis of the Phlebiopsis gigantea Genome, Transcriptome and Secretome Provides Insight into Its Pioneer Colonization Strategies of Wood
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Genetics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004759 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chiaki Hori, Takuya Ishida, Kiyohiko Igarashi, Masahiro Samejima, Hitoshi Suzuki, Emma Master, Patricia Ferreira, Francisco J. Ruiz-Dueñas, Benjamin Held, Paulo Canessa, Luis F. Larrondo, Monika Schmoll, Irina S. Druzhinina, Christian P. Kubicek, Jill A. Gaskell, Phil Kersten, Franz St. John, Jeremy Glasner, Grzegorz Sabat, Sandra Splinter BonDurant, Khajamohiddin Syed, Jagjit Yadav, Anthony C. Mgbeahuruike, Andriy Kovalchuk, Fred O. Asiegbu, Gerald Lackner, Dirk Hoffmeister, Jorge Rencoret, Ana Gutiérrez, Hui Sun, Erika Lindquist, Kerrie Barry, Robert Riley, Igor V. Grigoriev, Bernard Henrissat, Ursula Kües, Randy M. Berka, Angel T. Martínez, Sarah F. Covert, Robert A. Blanchette, Daniel Cullen |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 22% |
| Researcher | 38 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 16% |
| Unknown | 35 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 82 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Unknown | 45 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,459,565
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Genetics
#4,186
of 9,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,481
of 374,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Genetics
#88
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 374,451 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.