↓ Skip to main content

Interspecies Gene Transfer as a Method for Understanding the Genetic Basis for Evolutionary Change: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Interspecies Gene Transfer as a Method for Understanding the Genetic Basis for Evolutionary Change: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.01135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lachezar A. Nikolov, Miltos Tsiantis

Abstract

The recent revolution in high throughput sequencing and associated applications provides excellent opportunities to catalog variation in DNA sequences and gene expression between species. However, understanding the astonishing diversity of the Tree of Life requires understanding the phenotypic consequences of such variation and identification of those rare genetic changes that are causal to diversity. One way to study the genetic basis for trait diversity is to apply a transgenic approach and introduce genes of interest from a donor into a recipient species. Such interspecies gene transfer (IGT) is based on the premise that if a gene is causal to the morphological divergence of the two species, the transfer will endow the recipient with properties of the donor. Extensions of this approach further allow identifying novel loci for the diversification of form and investigating cis- and trans-contributions to morphological evolution. Here we review recent examples from both plant and animal systems that have employed IGT to provide insight into the genetic basis of evolutionary change. We outline the practice of IGT, its methodological strengths and weaknesses, and consider guidelines for its application, emphasizing the importance of phylogenetic distance, character polarity, and life history. We also discuss future perspectives for exploiting IGT in the context of expanding genomic resources in emerging experimental systems and advances in genome editing.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 20%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2019.
All research outputs
#14,830,609
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9,255
of 20,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,020
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#148
of 403 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,148 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 390,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 403 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 55% of its contemporaries.