↓ Skip to main content

Molecular phylogeny of diplomonads and enteromonads based on SSU rRNA, alpha-tubulin and HSP90 genes: Implications for the evolutionary history of the double karyomastigont of diplomonads

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2008
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Molecular phylogeny of diplomonads and enteromonads based on SSU rRNA, alpha-tubulin and HSP90 genes: Implications for the evolutionary history of the double karyomastigont of diplomonads
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-8-205
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Kolisko, Ivan Cepicka, Vladimir Hampl, Jessica Leigh, Andrew J Roger, Jaroslav Kulda, Alastair GB Simpson, Jaroslav Flegr

Abstract

Fornicata is a relatively recently established group of protists that includes the diplokaryotic diplomonads (which have two similar nuclei per cell), and the monokaryotic enteromonads, retortamonads and Carpediemonas, with the more typical one nucleus per cell. The monophyly of the group was confirmed by molecular phylogenetic studies, but neither the internal phylogeny nor its position on the eukaryotic tree has been clearly resolved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Colombia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Unknown 59 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#4,521,332
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#1,142
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,962
of 95,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 95,869 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.