↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

Article Metrics

Volatile evolution of long noncoding RNA repertoires: mechanisms and biological implications.

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Genetics, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 1,085)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Volatile evolution of long noncoding RNA repertoires: mechanisms and biological implications.
Published in
Trends in Genetics, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.tig.2014.08.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurélie Kapusta, Cédric Feschotte, Kapusta A, Feschotte C

Abstract

Thousands of genes encoding long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been identified in all vertebrate genomes thus far examined. The list of lncRNAs partaking in arguably important biochemical, cellular, and developmental activities is steadily growing. However, it is increasingly clear that lncRNA repertoires are subject to weak functional constraint and rapid turnover during vertebrate evolution. We discuss here some of the factors that may explain this apparent paradox, including relaxed constraint on sequence to maintain lncRNA structure/function, extensive redundancy in the regulatory circuits in which lncRNAs act, as well as adaptive and non-adaptive forces such as genetic drift. We explore the molecular mechanisms promoting the birth and rapid evolution of lncRNA genes, with an emphasis on the influence of bidirectional transcription and transposable elements, two pervasive features of vertebrate genomes. Together these properties reveal a remarkably dynamic and malleable noncoding transcriptome which may represent an important source of robustness and evolvability.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
India 3 1%
France 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 3 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 218 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 30%
Researcher 67 28%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Professor 14 6%
Other 42 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 152 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 5%
Unspecified 8 3%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 13 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#257,515
of 9,077,840 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Genetics
#16
of 1,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,700
of 191,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Genetics
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,077,840 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 191,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.