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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evo-devo of non-bilaterian animals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetics and Molecular Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1415-475738320150005 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilio Lanna |
| Abstract |
The non-bilaterian animals comprise organisms in the phyla Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora and Placozoa. These early-diverging phyla are pivotal to understanding the evolution of bilaterian animals. After the exponential increase in research in evolutionary development (evo-devo) in the last two decades, these organisms are again in the spotlight of evolutionary biology. In this work, I briefly review some aspects of the developmental biology of nonbilaterians that contribute to understanding the evolution of development and of the metazoans. The evolution of the developmental genetic toolkit, embryonic polarization, the origin of gastrulation and mesodermal cells, and the origin of neural cells are discussed. The possibility that germline and stem cell lineages have the same origin is also examined. Although a considerable number of non-bilaterian species are already being investigated, the use of species belonging to different branches of non-bilaterian lineages and functional experimentation with gene manipulation in the majority of the non-bilaterian lineages will be necessary for further progress in this field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 21% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 19 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,832,837
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#30
of 771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,094
of 277,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics and Molecular Biology
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 771 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 277,660 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 92% of its contemporaries.