↓ Skip to main content

Response to Comment on “A promiscuous intermediate underlies the evolution of LEAFY DNA binding specificity”

Overview of attention for article published in Science, February 2015
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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Response to Comment on “A promiscuous intermediate underlies the evolution of LEAFY DNA binding specificity”
Published in
Science, February 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1256011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel F. Brockington, Edwige Moyroud, Camille Sayou, Marie Monniaux, Max H. Nanao, Emmanuel Thévenon, Hicham Chahtane, Norman Warthmann, Michael Melkonian, Yong Zhang, Gane Ka-Shu Wong, Detlef Weigel, Renaud Dumas, François Parcy

Abstract

Brunkard et al. propose that the identification of novel LEAFY sequences contradicts our model of evolution through promiscuous intermediates. Based on the debate surrounding land plant phylogeny and on our analysis of these interesting novel sequences, we explain why there is no solid evidence to disprove our model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 30 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 39%
Researcher 9 27%
Student > Master 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 18%
Computer Science 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,520,574
of 14,145,010 outputs
Outputs from Science
#36,031
of 63,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,058
of 280,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#760
of 1,131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,145,010 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 63,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,961 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.