↓ Skip to main content

RNAmotifs: prediction of multivalent RNA motifs that control alternative splicing

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
RNAmotifs: prediction of multivalent RNA motifs that control alternative splicing
Published in
Genome Biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/gb-2014-15-1-r20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Cereda, Uberto Pozzoli, Gregor Rot, Peter Juvan, Anthony Schweitzer, Tyson Clark, Jernej Ule

Abstract

RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) regulate splicing according to position-dependent principles, which can be exploited for analysis of regulatory motifs. Here we present RNAmotifs, a method that evaluates the sequence around differentially regulated alternative exons to identify clusters of short and degenerate sequences, referred to as multivalent RNA motifs. We show that diverse RBPs share basic positional principles, but differ in their propensity to enhance or repress exon inclusion. We assess exons differentially spliced between brain and heart, identifying known and new regulatory motifs, and predict the expression pattern of RBPs that bind these motifs. RNAmotifs is available at https://bitbucket.org/rogrro/rna_motifs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 143 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 32%
Researcher 36 24%
Student > Master 9 6%
Professor 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 23%
Computer Science 9 6%
Engineering 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 25 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#2,589,561
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#2,069
of 4,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,480
of 322,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#59
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 322,359 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.