↓ Skip to main content

Sex-specific effects of sympatric mitonuclear variation on fitness in Drosophila subobscura

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Sex-specific effects of sympatric mitonuclear variation on fitness in Drosophila subobscura
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12862-015-0421-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mihailo Jelić, Göran Arnqvist, Zorana Kurbalija Novičić, Bojan Kenig, Marija Tanasković, Marko Anđelković, Marina Stamenković-Radak

Abstract

A number of recent studies have shown that the pattern of mitochondrial DNA variation and evolution is at odds with a neutral equilibrium model. Theory has suggested that selection on mitonuclear genotypes can act to maintain stable mitonuclear polymorphism within populations. However, this effect largely relies upon selection being either sex-specific or frequency dependent. Here, we use mitonuclear introgression lines to assess differences in a series of key life-history traits (egg-to-adult developmental time, viability, offspring sex-ratio, adult longevity and resistance to desiccation) in Drosophila subobscura fruit flies carrying one of three different sympatric mtDNA haplotypes. We found functional differences between these sympatric mtDNA haplotypes, but these effects were contingent upon the nuclear genome with which they were co-expressed. Further, we demonstrate a significant mitonuclear genetic effect on adult sex ratio, as well as a sex × mtDNA × nuDNA interaction for adult longevity. The observed effects suggest that sex specific mitonuclear selection contributes to the maintenance of mtDNA polymorphism and to mitonuclear linkage disequilibrium in this model system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Unknown 16 70%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Chemistry 1 4%
Unknown 17 74%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#5,434,355
of 9,684,510 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1,627
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,441
of 231,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#50
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,684,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 231,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.