↓ Skip to main content

Dosage compensation is less effective in birds than in mammals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biology, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 102)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 Wikipedia pages
1 Google+ user


241 Dimensions

Readers on

120 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
2 Connotea
Dosage compensation is less effective in birds than in mammals
Published in
Journal of Biology, March 2007
DOI 10.1186/jbiol53
Pubmed ID

Itoh Y, Melamed E, Yang X, Kampf K, Wang S, Yehya N, Van Nas A, Replogle K, Band MR, Clayton DF, Schadt EE, Lusis AJ, Arnold AP, Yuichiro Itoh, Esther Melamed, Xia Yang, Kathy Kampf, Susanna Wang, Nadir Yehya, Atila Van Nas, Kirstin Replogle, Mark R Band, David F Clayton, Eric E Schadt, Aldons J Lusis, Arthur P Arnold


In animals with heteromorphic sex chromosomes, dosage compensation of sex-chromosome genes is thought to be critical for species survival. Diverse molecular mechanisms have evolved to effectively balance the expressed dose of X-linked genes between XX and XY animals, and to balance expression of X and autosomal genes. Dosage compensation is not understood in birds, in which females (ZW) and males (ZZ) differ in the number of Z chromosomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Ireland 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 109 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 33%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Master 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 21%
Unspecified 7 6%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 6 5%

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 22 October 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,030,692 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biology
of 102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 192,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biology
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,030,692 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 192,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.