↓ Skip to main content

Comparative transcriptomics of elasmobranchs and teleosts highlight important processes in adaptive immunity and regional endothermy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2017
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 (#12 of 10,681)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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.
Title
Comparative transcriptomics of elasmobranchs and teleosts highlight important processes in adaptive immunity and regional endothermy
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-3411-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Marra, Vincent P. Richards, Angela Early, Steve M. Bogdanowicz, Paulina D. Pavinski Bitar, Michael J. Stanhope, Mahmood S. Shivji

Abstract

Comparative genomic and/or transcriptomic analyses involving elasmobranchs remain limited, with genome level comparisons of the elasmobranch immune system to that of higher vertebrates, non-existent. This paper reports a comparative RNA-seq analysis of heart tissue from seven species, including four elasmobranchs and three teleosts, focusing on immunity, but concomitantly seeking to identify genetic similarities shared by the two lamnid sharks and the single billfish in our study, which could be linked to convergent evolution of regional endothermy. Across seven species, we identified an average of 10,877 Swiss-Prot annotated genes from an average of 32,474 open reading frames within each species' heart transcriptome. About half of these genes were shared between all species while the remainder included functional differences between our groups of interest (elasmobranch vs. teleost and endotherms vs. ectotherms) as revealed by Gene Ontology (GO) and selection analyses. A repeatedly represented functional category, in both the uniquely expressed elasmobranch genes (total of 259) and the elasmobranch GO enrichment results, involved antibody-mediated immunity, either in the recruitment of immune cells (Fc receptors) or in antigen presentation, including such terms as "antigen processing and presentation of exogenous peptide antigen via MHC class II", and such genes as MHC class II, HLA-DPB1. Molecular adaptation analyses identified three genes in elasmobranchs with a history of positive selection, including legumain (LGMN), a gene with roles in both innate and adaptive immunity including producing antigens for presentation by MHC class II. Comparisons between the endothermic and ectothermic species revealed an enrichment of GO terms associated with cardiac muscle contraction in endotherms, with 19 genes expressed solely in endotherms, several of which have significant roles in lipid and fat metabolism. This collective comparative evidence provides the first multi-taxa transcriptomic-based perspective on differences between elasmobranchs and teleosts, and suggests various unique features associated with the adaptive immune system of elasmobranchs, pointing in particular to the potential importance of MHC Class II. This in turn suggests that expanded comparative work involving additional tissues, as well as genome sequencing of multiple elasmobranch species would be productive in elucidating the regulatory and genome architectural hallmarks of elasmobranchs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 22%
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 24%
Environmental Science 8 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 169. 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 30 October 2020.
All research outputs
#201,367
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#12
of 10,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,042
of 420,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#1
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 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 10,681 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. 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 420,054 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 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.