| Title |
Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 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 |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 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 | 29 | 29% |
| Japan | 5 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 50 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 60 | 59% |
| Scientists | 40 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 308 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 74 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 14% |
| Researcher | 44 | 14% |
| Other | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 35 | 11% |
| Unknown | 56 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 159 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 57 | 18% |
| Environmental Science | 18 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Unknown | 60 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 27 October 2023.
All research outputs
#638,628
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,588
of 224,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,280
of 292,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#180
of 5,454 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. 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 292,107 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,454 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 96% of its contemporaries.