↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria.

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
114 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria.
Published in
PLoS ONE, January 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0139068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felipe Zapata, Freya E. Goetz, Stephen A. Smith, Mark Howison, Stefan Siebert, Samuel H. Church, Steven M. Sanders, Cheryl Lewis Ames, Catherine S. McFadden, Scott C. France, Marymegan Daly, Allen G. Collins, Steven H. D. Haddock, Casey W. Dunn, Paulyn Cartwright, Zapata, Felipe, Goetz, Freya E, Smith, Stephen A, Howison, Mark, Siebert, Stefan, Church, Samuel H, Sanders, Steven M, Ames, Cheryl Lewis, McFadden, Catherine S, France, Scott C, Daly, Marymegan, Collins, Allen G, Haddock, Steven H D, Dunn, Casey W, Cartwright, Paulyn, Robert E. Steele

Abstract

Cnidaria, the sister group to Bilateria, is a highly diverse group of animals in terms of morphology, lifecycles, ecology, and development. How this diversity originated and evolved is not well understood because phylogenetic relationships among major cnidarian lineages are unclear, and recent studies present contrasting phylogenetic hypotheses. Here, we use transcriptome data from 15 newly-sequenced species in combination with 26 publicly available genomes and transcriptomes to assess phylogenetic relationships among major cnidarian lineages. Phylogenetic analyses using different partition schemes and models of molecular evolution, as well as topology tests for alternative phylogenetic relationships, support the monophyly of Medusozoa, Anthozoa, Octocorallia, Hydrozoa, and a clade consisting of Staurozoa, Cubozoa, and Scyphozoa. Support for the monophyly of Hexacorallia is weak due to the equivocal position of Ceriantharia. Taken together, these results further resolve deep cnidarian relationships, largely support traditional phylogenetic views on relationships, and provide a historical framework for studying the evolutionary processes involved in one of the most ancient animal radiations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 114 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 7 5%
Brazil 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 136 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 31%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 108 70%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 15%
Unspecified 8 5%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Other 4 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#178,366
of 11,626,747 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#3,874
of 128,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,815
of 248,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#132
of 5,346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,626,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 128,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 248,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.