↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary determinants of genome-wide nucleotide composition

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
105 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Evolutionary determinants of genome-wide nucleotide composition
Published in
Nature Ecology & Evolution, January 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41559-017-0425-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongan Long, Way Sung, Sibel Kucukyildirim, Emily Williams, Samuel F. Miller, Wanfeng Guo, Caitlyn Patterson, Colin Gregory, Chloe Strauss, Casey Stone, Cécile Berne, David Kysela, William R. Shoemaker, Mario E. Muscarella, Haiwei Luo, Jay T. Lennon, Yves V. Brun, Michael Lynch

Abstract

One of the long-standing mysteries of evolutionary genomics is the source of the wide phylogenetic diversity in genome nucleotide composition (G + C versus A + T), which must be a consequence of interspecific differences in mutation bias, the efficiency of selection for different nucleotides or a combination of the two. We demonstrate that although genomic G + C composition is strongly driven by mutation bias, it is also substantially modified by direct selection and/or as a by-product of biased gene conversion. Moreover, G + C composition at fourfold redundant sites is consistently elevated above the neutral expectation-more so than for any other class of sites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 105 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 25%
Student > Master 23 22%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 34%
Unspecified 10 10%
Computer Science 4 4%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 5 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#164,596
of 13,331,130 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#353
of 888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,614
of 384,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#37
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,331,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 146.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 384,016 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 56% of its contemporaries.