↓ Skip to main content

Comparative analysis of lincRNA in insect species

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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 analysis of lincRNA in insect species
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0985-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alberto Lopez-Ezquerra, Mark C. Harrison, Erich Bornberg-Bauer

Abstract

The ever increasing availability of genomes makes it possible to investigate and compare not only the genomic complements of genes and proteins, but also of RNAs. One class of RNAs, the long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and, in particular, their subclass of long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) have recently gained much attention because of their roles in regulation of important biological processes such as immune response or cell differentiation and as possible evolutionary precursors for protein coding genes. lincRNAs seem to be poorly conserved at the sequence level but at least some lincRNAs have conserved structural elements and syntenic genomic positions. Previous studies showed that transposable elements are a main contribution to the evolution of lincRNAs in mammals. In contrast, plant lincRNA emergence and evolution has been linked with local duplication events. However, little is known about their evolutionary dynamics in general and in insect genomes in particular. Here we compared lincRNAs between seven insect genomes and investigated possible evolutionary changes and functional roles. We find very low sequence conservation between different species and that similarities within a species are mostly due to their association with transposable elements (TE) and simple repeats. Furthermore, we find that TEs are less frequent in lincRNA exons than in their introns, indicating that TEs may have been removed by selection. When we analysed the predicted thermodynamic stabilities of lincRNAs we found that they are more stable than their randomized controls which might indicate some selection pressure to maintain certain structural elements. We list several of the most stable lincRNAs which could serve as prime candidates for future functional studies. We also discuss the possibility of de novo protein coding genes emerging from lincRNAs. This is because lincRNAs with high GC content and potentially with longer open reading frames (ORF) are candidate loci where de novo gene emergence might occur. The processes responsible for the emergence and diversification of lincRNAs in insects remain unclear. Both duplication and transposable elements may be important for the creation of new lincRNAs in insects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 33%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 30%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,403
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,147
of 326,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#57
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 326,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.