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
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 951)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
48 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
199 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 48 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 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
France 4 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
India 3 2%
Brazil 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 170 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 33%
Researcher 55 28%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Professor 10 5%
Other 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 148 74%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Computer Science 4 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 2 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#179,980
of 7,356,012 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Genetics
#9
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,297
of 185,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Genetics
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,356,012 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 951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 185,619 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.