↓ Skip to main content

Restricting retrotransposons: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Mobile DNA, August 2016
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 (#1 of 321)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

20 news outlets
3 blogs
34 tweeters
1 patent
1 Facebook page


261 Dimensions

Readers on

527 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Restricting retrotransposons: a review
Published in
Mobile DNA, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13100-016-0070-z
Pubmed ID

John L. Goodier


Retrotransposons have generated about 40 % of the human genome. This review examines the strategies the cell has evolved to coexist with these genomic "parasites", focussing on the non-long terminal repeat retrotransposons of humans and mice. Some of the restriction factors for retrotransposition, including the APOBECs, MOV10, RNASEL, SAMHD1, TREX1, and ZAP, also limit replication of retroviruses, including HIV, and are part of the intrinsic immune system of the cell. Many of these proteins act in the cytoplasm to degrade retroelement RNA or inhibit its translation. Some factors act in the nucleus and involve DNA repair enzymes or epigenetic processes of DNA methylation and histone modification. RISC and piRNA pathway proteins protect the germline. Retrotransposon control is relaxed in some cell types, such as neurons in the brain, stem cells, and in certain types of disease and cancer, with implications for human health and disease. This review also considers potential pitfalls in interpreting retrotransposon-related data, as well as issues to consider for future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 527 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 519 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 129 24%
Researcher 76 14%
Student > Master 66 13%
Student > Bachelor 53 10%
Student > Postgraduate 47 9%
Other 78 15%
Unknown 78 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 214 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 151 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 2%
Neuroscience 10 2%
Other 39 7%
Unknown 85 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 193. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
of 21,334,388 outputs
Outputs from Mobile DNA
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 281,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mobile DNA
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,334,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 281,025 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them