↓ Skip to main content

Single colony genetic analysis of epilithic stream algae of the genus Chamaesiphon spp.

Overview of attention for article published in Hydrobiologia, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Single colony genetic analysis of epilithic stream algae of the genus Chamaesiphon spp.
Published in
Hydrobiologia, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10750-017-3295-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rainer Kurmayer, Guntram Christiansen, Andreas Holzinger, Eugen Rott

Abstract

In order to understand Chamaesiphon spp. evolution and ecological diversification, we investigated the phylogenetic differentiation of three morphospecies from field samples by means of single colony genetics. Individual colonies of three different morphospecies (C. starmachii, C. polonicus, C. geitleri,) were isolated from lotic gravel streams and their 16S rDNA nucleotide variability was analyzed. For a number of individual colonies, microscopical and ultrastructural analysis was also performed. A phylogenetic tree of all major lineages of the phylum of Cyanobacteria assigned all Chamaesiphon genotypes (1149-1176 bp) most closely with the family of Gomontiellaceae of the order Oscillatoriales. The sequences obtained from colonies assigned to C. starmachii (n = 21), C. polonicus (n = 9), and C. geitleri (n = 17) were found to reveal high average (3.5%) nucleotide diversity. No phylogenetic sub-branching in correspondence with morphology was observed suggesting that the three Chamaesiphon morphospecies did not represent monophyletic taxa. We could not attribute specific thylakoid ultrastructure to phylogenetic sub-branches; however, the observed parietally and loosely arranged thylakoids indicate that for the genus Chamaesiphon, the variability in thylakoid ultrastructure might have been underestimated. In summary, the high nucleotide diversity of the 16S rDNA gene implies phylogenetic diversity that corresponds little to morphological classification.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 22%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 35%
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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#23,320,957
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Hydrobiologia
#2,309
of 2,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,810
of 330,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hydrobiologia
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,687 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.