↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Natural History, Microbes and Sequences: Shouldn't We Look Back Again to Organisms?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Natural History, Microbes and Sequences: Shouldn't We Look Back Again to Organisms?
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0021334
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Lazcano

Abstract

The discussion on the existence of prokaryotic species is reviewed. The demonstration that several different mechanisms of genetic exchange and recombination exist has led some to a radical rejection of the possibility of bacterial species and, in general, the applicability of traditional classification categories to the prokaryotic domains. However, in spite of intense gene traffic, prokaryotic groups are not continuously variable but form discrete clusters of phenotypically coherent, well-defined, diagnosable groups of individual organisms. Molecularization of life sciences has led to biased approaches to the issue of the origins of biodiversity, which has resulted in the increasingly extended tendency to emphasize genes and sequences and not give proper attention to organismal biology. As argued here, molecular and organismal approaches that should be seen as complementary and not opposed views of biology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 6%
Mexico 4 6%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 54 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 69%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 6 9%