↓ Skip to main content
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
328 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1230 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing
Published in
Nature, February 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sangeet Lamichhaney, Jonas Berglund, Markus Sällman Almén, Khurram Maqbool, Manfred Grabherr, Alvaro Martinez-Barrio, Marta Promerová, Carl-Johan Rubin, Chao Wang, Neda Zamani, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, Matthew T. Webster, Leif Andersson

Abstract

Darwin's finches, inhabiting the Galápagos archipelago and Cocos Island, constitute an iconic model for studies of speciation and adaptive evolution. Here we report the results of whole-genome re-sequencing of 120 individuals representing all of the Darwin's finch species and two close relatives. Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry. A 240 kilobase haplotype encompassing the ALX1 gene that encodes a transcription factor affecting craniofacial development is strongly associated with beak shape diversity across Darwin's finch species as well as within the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), a species that has undergone rapid evolution of beak shape in response to environmental changes. The ALX1 haplotype has contributed to diversification of beak shapes among the Darwin's finches and, thereby, to an expanded utilization of food resources.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 335 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 1,230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 39 3%
Germany 10 <1%
Spain 9 <1%
Brazil 8 <1%
United Kingdom 8 <1%
Sweden 7 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Portugal 4 <1%
Switzerland 4 <1%
Other 33 3%
Unknown 1104 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 337 27%
Researcher 241 20%
Student > Master 175 14%
Student > Bachelor 156 13%
Unspecified 60 5%
Other 261 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 864 70%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 153 12%
Unspecified 89 7%
Environmental Science 58 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 1%
Other 51 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 621. 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 29 March 2019.
All research outputs
#9,885
of 13,090,703 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#1,451
of 68,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210
of 277,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#51
of 926 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,090,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 68,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 74.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 277,614 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 926 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 94% of its contemporaries.