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 |
The rhizome of life: what about metazoa?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00050 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hemalatha G. Ramulu, Didier Raoult, Pierre Pontarotti |
| Abstract |
The increase in huge number of genomic sequences in recent years has contributed to various genetic events such as horizontal gene transfer (HGT), gene duplication and hybridization of species. Among them HGT has played an important role in the genome evolution and was believed to occur only in Bacterial and Archaeal genomes. As a result, genomes were found to be chimeric and the evolution of life was represented in different forms such as forests, networks and species evolution was described more like a rhizome, rather than a tree. However, in the last few years, HGT has also been evidenced in other group such as metazoa (for example in root-knot nematodes, bdelloid rotifers and mammals). In addition to HGT, other genetic events such as transfer by retrotransposons and hybridization between more closely related lineages are also well established. Therefore, in the light of such genetic events, whether the evolution of metazoa exists in the form of a tree, network or rhizome is highly questionable and needs to be determined. In the current review, we will focus on the role of HGT, retrotransposons and hybridization in the metazoan evolution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 21% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,664,478
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#4,009
of 6,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,325
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#69
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.