↓ Skip to main content

Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, May 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
1239 Mendeley
citeulike
11 CiteULike
Title
Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes
Published in
Nature, May 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Spang, Jimmy H. Saw, Steffen L. Jørgensen, Katarzyna Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, Joran Martijn, Anders E. Lind, Roel van Eijk, Christa Schleper, Lionel Guy, Thijs J. G. Ettema, Spang, Anja, Saw, Jimmy H, Jørgensen, Steffen L, Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, Katarzyna, Martijn, Joran, Lind, Anders E, van Eijk, Roel, Schleper, Christa, Guy, Lionel, Ettema, Thijs J G

Abstract

The origin of the eukaryotic cell remains one of the most contentious puzzles in modern biology. Recent studies have provided support for the emergence of the eukaryotic host cell from within the archaeal domain of life, but the identity and nature of the putative archaeal ancestor remain a subject of debate. Here we describe the discovery of 'Lokiarchaeota', a novel candidate archaeal phylum, which forms a monophyletic group with eukaryotes in phylogenomic analyses, and whose genomes encode an expanded repertoire of eukaryotic signature proteins that are suggestive of sophisticated membrane remodelling capabilities. Our results provide strong support for hypotheses in which the eukaryotic host evolved from a bona fide archaeon, and demonstrate that many components that underpin eukaryote-specific features were already present in that ancestor. This provided the host with a rich genomic 'starter-kit' to support the increase in the cellular and genomic complexity that is characteristic of eukaryotes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 742 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 1,239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 53 4%
Germany 24 2%
Brazil 16 1%
France 15 1%
United Kingdom 13 1%
Spain 9 <1%
Canada 8 <1%
Czech Republic 7 <1%
Netherlands 7 <1%
Other 58 5%
Unknown 1029 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 336 27%
Researcher 268 22%
Student > Master 169 14%
Student > Bachelor 165 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 63 5%
Other 237 19%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 738 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 184 15%
Environmental Science 92 7%
Unspecified 54 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 45 4%
Other 125 10%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1085. 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 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,686
of 8,668,539 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#367
of 48,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55
of 209,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#18
of 1,004 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,668,539 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 48,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 209,294 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,004 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 98% of its contemporaries.