↓ Skip to main content

Conway's “Game of Life” and the Epigenetic Principle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Conway's “Game of Life” and the Epigenetic Principle
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorena Caballero, Bob Hodge, Sergio Hernandez

Abstract

Cellular automatons and computer simulation games are widely used as heuristic devices in biology, to explore implications and consequences of specific theories. Conway's Game of Life has been widely used for this purpose. This game was designed to explore the evolution of ecological communities. We apply it to other biological processes, including symbiopoiesis. We show that Conway's organization of rules reflects the epigenetic principle, that genetic action and developmental processes are inseparable dimensions of a single biological system, analogous to the integration processes in symbiopoiesis. We look for similarities and differences between two epigenetic models, by Turing and Edelman, as they are realized in Game of Life objects. We show the value of computer simulations to experiment with and propose generalizations of broader scope with novel testable predictions. We use the game to explore issues in symbiopoiesis and evo-devo, where we explore a fractal hypothesis: that self-similarity exists at different levels (cells, organisms, ecological communities) as a result of homologous interactions of two as processes modeled in the Game of Life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 24%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 24%
Engineering 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Philosophy 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,285,126
of 23,578,176 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#1,184
of 6,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,773
of 354,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,176 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 354,429 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.