↓ Skip to main content

Empirical testing of hypotheses about the evolution of genomic imprinting in mammals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Empirical testing of hypotheses about the evolution of genomic imprinting in mammals
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2013.00006
Pubmed ID
Authors

David G. Ashbrook, Reinmar Hager

Abstract

The close interaction between mother and offspring in mammals is thought to contribute to the evolution of genomic imprinting or parent-of-origin dependent gene expression. Empirical tests of theories about the evolution of imprinting have been scant for several reasons. Models make different assumptions about the traits affected by imprinted genes and the scenarios in which imprinting is predicted to have been selected for. Thus, competing hypotheses cannot readily be tested against each other. Further, it is far from clear how predictions about expression patterns of genes with specific phenotypic effects can be tested given current methodology of assaying gene expression levels, be it in the brain or in other tissues. We first set out a scenario for testing competing hypotheses and delineate the different assumptions and predictions of models. We then outline how predictions may be tested using mouse models such as intercrosses or recombinant inbred (RI) systems that can be phenotyped for traits relevant to imprinting theories. Further, we briefly discuss different molecular approaches that may be used in conjunction with experiments to ascertain expression patterns of imprinted genes and thus the testing of predictions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 5%
United Kingdom 2 5%
Unknown 33 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 30%
Student > Bachelor 8 22%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Environmental Science 3 8%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 3 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 December 2019.
All research outputs
#15,270,698
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#786
of 1,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,486
of 280,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,157 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 280,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.