↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 16: Comparative Genomics of Gene Loss and Gain in Caenorhabditis and Other Nematodes
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 (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Comparative Genomics of Gene Loss and Gain in Caenorhabditis and Other Nematodes
Chapter number 16
Book title
Comparative Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_16
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
Authors

Christian Rödelsperger

Abstract

Nematodes, such as Caenorhabditis elegans, form one of the most species-rich animal phyla. By now more than 30 nematode genomes have been published allowing for comparative genomic analyses at various different time-scales. The majority of a nematode's gene repertoire is represented by either duplicated or so-called orphan genes of unknown origin. This indicates the importance of mechanisms that generate new genes during the course of evolution. While it is certain that nematodes have acquired genes by horizontal gene transfer from various donors, this process only explains a small portion of the nematode gene content. As evolutionary genomic analyses strongly support that most orphan genes are indeed protein-coding, future studies will have to decide, whether they are result from extreme divergence or evolved de novo from previously noncoding sequences. In this contribution, I summarize several studies investigating gene loss and gain in nematodes and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of individual approaches and datasets. These approaches can be used to ask nematode-specific questions such as associated with the evolution of parasitism or with switches in mating systems, but also can complement studies in other animal phyla like vertebrates and insects to broaden our general view on genome evolution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 36%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 29%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,713,232
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,580
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,174
of 442,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#142
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 75th 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 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 442,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 90% of its contemporaries.