↓ Skip to main content

Synonymous site conservation in the HIV-1 genome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Synonymous site conservation in the HIV-1 genome
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-13-164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Itay Mayrose, Adi Stern, Ela O Burdelova, Yosef Sabo, Nihay Laham-Karam, Rachel Zamostiano, Eran Bacharach, Tal Pupko

Abstract

Synonymous or silent mutations are usually thought to evolve neutrally. However, accumulating recent evidence has demonstrated that silent mutations may destabilize RNA structures or disrupt cis regulatory motifs superimposed on coding sequences. Such observations suggest the existence of stretches of codon sites that are evolutionary conserved at both DNA-RNA and protein levels. Such stretches may point to functionally important regions within protein coding sequences not necessarily reflecting functional constraints on the amino-acid sequence. The HIV-1 genome is highly compact, and often harbors overlapping functional elements at the protein, RNA, and DNA levels. This superimposition of functions leads to complex selective forces acting on all levels of the genome and proteome. Considering the constraints on HIV-1 to maintain such a highly compact genome, we hypothesized that stretches of synonymous conservation would be common within its genome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Computer Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 April 2021.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,697
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,233
of 209,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#46
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 209,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.