↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

EVIDENCE FOR REPEATED LOSS OF SELECTIVE CONSTRAINT IN RHODOPSIN OF AMBLYOPSID CAVEFISHES (TELEOSTEI: AMBLYOPSIDAE)

Overview of attention for article published in Evolution, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
EVIDENCE FOR REPEATED LOSS OF SELECTIVE CONSTRAINT IN RHODOPSIN OF AMBLYOPSID CAVEFISHES (TELEOSTEI: AMBLYOPSIDAE)
Published in
Evolution, November 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01822.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew L. Niemiller, Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick, Premal Shah, Lars Schmitz, Thomas J. Near

Abstract

The genetic mechanisms underlying regressive evolution-the degeneration or loss of a derived trait--are largely unknown, particularly for complex structures such as eyes in cave organisms. In several eyeless animals, the visual photoreceptor rhodopsin appears to have retained functional amino acid sequences. Hypotheses to explain apparent maintenance of function include weak selection for retention of light-sensing abilities and its pleiotropic roles in circadian rhythms and thermotaxis. In contrast, we show that there has been repeated loss of functional constraint of rhodopsin in amblyopsid cavefishes, as at least three cave lineages have independently accumulated unique loss-of-function mutations over the last 10.3 Mya. Although several cave lineages still possess functional rhodopsin, they exhibit increased rates of nonsynonymous mutations that have greater effect on the structure and function of rhodopsin compared to those in surface lineages. These results indicate that functionality of rhodopsin has been repeatedly lost in amblyopsid cavefishes. The presence of a functional copy of rhodopsin in some cave lineages is likely explained by stochastic accumulation of mutations following recent subterranean colonization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 29%
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Professor 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 13%
Environmental Science 9 10%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 8 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Evolution
#4,762
of 5,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,129
of 198,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution
#32
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 198,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.