↓ Skip to main content

Connecting functional and statistical definitions of genotype by genotype interactions in coevolutionary studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Connecting functional and statistical definitions of genotype by genotype interactions in coevolutionary studies
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy D. Heath, Scott L. Nuismer

Abstract

Predicting how species interactions evolve requires that we understand the mechanistic basis of coevolution, and thus the functional genotype-by-genotype interactions (G × G) that drive reciprocal natural selection. Theory on host-parasite coevolution provides testable hypotheses for empiricists, but depends upon models of functional G × G that remain loosely tethered to the molecular details of any particular system. In practice, reciprocal cross-infection studies are often used to partition the variation in infection or fitness in a population that is attributable to G × G (statistical G × G). Here we use simulations to demonstrate that within-population statistical G × G likely tells us little about the existence of coevolution, its strength, or the genetic basis of functional G × G. Combined with studies of multiple populations or points in time, mapping and molecular techniques can bridge the gap between natural variation and mechanistic models of coevolution, while model-based statistics can formally confront coevolutionary models with cross-infection data. Together these approaches provide a robust framework for inferring the infection genetics underlying statistical G × G, helping unravel the genetic basis of coevolution.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 94%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Unknown 1 3%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#12,704,903
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#2,563
of 11,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,756
of 226,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#46
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 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 11,758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 226,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.