↓ Skip to main content

Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
68 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
327 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Rooting the tree of life by transition analyses
Published in
Biology Direct, July 2006
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-1-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Cavalier-Smith

Abstract

Despite great advances in clarifying the family tree of life, it is still not agreed where its root is or what properties the most ancient cells possessed--the most difficult problems in phylogeny. Protein paralogue trees can theoretically place the root, but are contradictory because of tree-reconstruction artefacts or poor resolution; ribosome-related and DNA-handling enzymes suggested one between neomura (eukaryotes plus archaebacteria) and eubacteria, whereas metabolic enzymes often place it within eubacteria but in contradictory places. Palaeontology shows that eubacteria are much more ancient than eukaryotes, and, together with phylogenetic evidence that archaebacteria are sisters not ancestral to eukaryotes, implies that the root is not within the neomura. Transition analysis, involving comparative/developmental and selective arguments, can polarize major transitions and thereby systematically exclude the root from major clades possessing derived characters and thus locate it; previously the 20 shared neomuran characters were thus argued to be derived, but whether the root was within eubacteria or between them and archaebacteria remained controversial.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 327 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
Germany 5 2%
Brazil 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 285 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 79 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 19%
Professor 29 9%
Student > Master 26 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 7%
Other 65 20%
Unknown 43 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 174 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 13%
Environmental Science 14 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 4%
Chemistry 8 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 51 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 07 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,769,269
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#54
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,344
of 92,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. 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 92,014 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them