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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A computational approach for identifying microRNA-target interactions using high-throughput CLIP and PAR-CLIP sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Genomics, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-14-s1-s2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chih-Hung Chou, Feng-Mao Lin, Min-Te Chou, Sheng-Da Hsu, Tzu-Hao Chang, Shun-Long Weng, Sirjana Shrestha, Chiung-Chih Hsiao, Jui-Hung Hung, Hsien-Da Huang |
| Abstract |
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play a critical role in down-regulating gene expression. By coupling with Argonaute family proteins, miRNAs bind to target sites on mRNAs and employ translational repression. A large amount of miRNA-target interactions (MTIs) have been identified by the crosslinking and immunoprecipitation (CLIP) and the photoactivatable-ribonucleoside-enhanced CLIP (PAR-CLIP) along with the next-generation sequencing (NGS). PAR-CLIP shows high efficiency of RNA co-immunoprecipitation, but it also lead to T to C conversion in miRNA-RNA-protein crosslinking regions. This artificial error obviously reduces the mappability of reads. However, a specific tool to analyze CLIP and PAR-CLIP data that takes T to C conversion into account is still in need. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 30% |
| Researcher | 25 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 49 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 13 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,870,383
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,548
of 10,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,600
of 279,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#167
of 368 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,616 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 279,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 368 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.