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 |
Gene Duplication and Protein Evolution in Tick-Host Interactions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00413 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ben J. Mans, Jonathan Featherston, Minique H. de Castro, Ronel Pienaar |
| Abstract |
Ticks modulate their hosts' defense responses by secreting a biopharmacopiea of hundreds to thousands of proteins and bioactive chemicals into the feeding site (tick-host interface). These molecules and their functions evolved over millions of years as ticks adapted to blood-feeding, tick lineages diverged, and host-shifts occurred. The evolution of new proteins with new functions is mainly dependent on gene duplication events. Central questions around this are the rates of gene duplication, when they occurred and how new functions evolve after gene duplication. The current review investigates these questions in the light of tick biology and considers the possibilities of ancient genome duplication, lineage specific expansion events, and the role that positive selection played in the evolution of tick protein function. It contrasts current views in tick biology regarding adaptive evolution with the more general view that neutral evolution may account for the majority of biological innovations observed in ticks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,570,909
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#2,258
of 6,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,866
of 320,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#46
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 320,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.