↓ Skip to main content

Signatures of Selection in the Genomes of Chinese Chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume): The Roots of Nut Tree Domestication

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

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
Signatures of Selection in the Genomes of Chinese Chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume): The Roots of Nut Tree Domestication
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas R. LaBonte, Peng Zhao, Keith Woeste

Abstract

Chestnuts (Castanea) are major nut crops in East Asia and southern Europe, and are unique among temperate nut crops in that the harvested seeds are starchy rather than oily. Chestnut species have been cultivated for three millennia or more in China, so it is likely that artificial selection has affected the genome of orchard-grown chestnuts. The genetics of Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume) domestication are also of interest to breeders of hybrid American chestnut, especially if the low-growing, branching habit of Chinese chestnut, an impediment to American chestnut restoration, is partly the result of artificial selection. We resequenced genomes of wild and orchard-derived Chinese chestnuts and identified selective sweeps based on pooled whole-genome SNP datasets. We present candidate gene loci for chestnut domestication and discuss the potential phenotypic effects of candidate loci, some of which may be useful genes for chestnut improvement in Asia and North America. Selective sweeps included predicted genes potentially related to flower phenology and development, fruit maturation, and secondary metabolism, and included some genes homologous to domestication candidates in other woody plants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Researcher 5 14%
Unspecified 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 43%
Unspecified 4 11%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,332,207
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9,915
of 21,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,408
of 330,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#245
of 477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 21,632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 330,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 477 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.