↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 9: Inferring orthology and paralogy.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Chapter title
Inferring orthology and paralogy.
Chapter number 9
Book title
Evolutionary Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-582-4_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-581-7, 978-1-61779-582-4
Authors

Adrian M. Altenhoff, Christophe Dessimoz, Altenhoff, Adrian M., Dessimoz, Christophe

Editors

Maria Anisimova

Abstract

The distinction between orthologs and paralogs, genes that started diverging by speciation versus duplication, is relevant in a wide range of contexts, most notably phylogenetic tree inference and protein function annotation. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the methods used to infer orthology and paralogy. We survey both graph-based approaches (and their various grouping strategies) and tree-based approaches, which solve the more general problem of gene/species tree reconciliation. We discuss conceptual differences among the various orthology inference methods and databases, and examine the difficult issue of verifying and benchmarking orthology predictions. Finally, we review typical applications of orthologous genes, groups, and reconciled trees and conclude with thoughts on future methodological developments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 3%
United States 3 3%
Mexico 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 96 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 26%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 18%
Computer Science 7 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 22 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,472,062
of 24,569,575 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,236
of 13,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,971
of 256,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#132
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,569,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,814 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 256,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 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 71% of its contemporaries.