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 |
Annotating long intergenic non-coding RNAs under artificial selection during chicken domestication
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12862-017-1036-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yun-Mei Wang, Hai-Bo Xu, Ming-Shan Wang, Newton Otieno Otecko, Ling-Qun Ye, Dong-Dong Wu, Ya-Ping Zhang |
| Abstract |
Numerous biological functions of long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) have been identified. However, the contribution of lincRNAs to the domestication process has remained elusive. Following domestication from their wild ancestors, animals display substantial changes in many phenotypic traits. Therefore, it is possible that diverse molecular drivers play important roles in this process. We analyzed 821 transcriptomes in this study and annotated 4754 lincRNA genes in the chicken genome. Our population genomic analysis indicates that 419 lincRNAs potentially evolved during artificial selection related to the domestication of chicken, while a comparative transcriptomic analysis identified 68 lincRNAs that were differentially expressed under different conditions. We also found 47 lincRNAs linked to special phenotypes. Our study provides a comprehensive view of the genome-wide landscape of lincRNAs in chicken. This will promote a better understanding of the roles of lincRNAs in domestication, and the genetic mechanisms associated with the artificial selection of domestic animals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 59% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 32% |
| Unknown | 2 | 9% |
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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,818
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,269
of 326,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#51
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 326,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.