↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 10: Whole Genome Duplication in Plants: Implications for Evolutionary Analysis
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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.
Chapter title
Whole Genome Duplication in Plants: Implications for Evolutionary Analysis
Chapter number 10
Book title
Comparative Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_10
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
Authors

David Sankoff, Chunfang Zheng

Abstract

The recurrent cycle of whole genome duplication (WGD) followed by massive duplicate gene loss (fractionation) differentiates plant evolutionary history from that of most other phylogenetic domains, where WGD has occurred relatively rarely, even on an evolutionary time scale. We discuss the mechanism of WGD and its biological consequences. We survey the prevalence of WGD in the flowering plants. We outline some of the major kinds of combinatorial optimization problems arising in computational biology for analyzing WGD. Fractionation and its consequences are the subject of mathematical modeling questions and further combinatorial algorithms. A strong connection is made between WGD in phylogenetic context and the theory of gene trees and species trees. We illustrate the analysis of WGD with studies involving a large number of sequenced plant genomes, including grape, the crucifers and other rosids, the asterid tomato, the eudicot Nelumbo nucifera and pineapple, a monocot.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 26%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,629,200
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,334
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,488
of 442,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#116
of 1,498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 442,345 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,498 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 92% of its contemporaries.