↓ Skip to main content

Protocol: a beginner’s guide to the analysis of RNA-directed DNA methylation in plants

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Protocol: a beginner’s guide to the analysis of RNA-directed DNA methylation in plants
Published in
Plant Methods, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-4811-10-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huiming Zhang, Kai Tang, Bangshing Wang, Cheng-Guo Duan, Zhaobo Lang, Jian-Kang Zhu

Abstract

DNA methylation is a conserved epigenetic mark that controls genome stability, development and environmental responses in many eukaryotes. DNA methylation can be guided by non-coding RNAs that include small interfering RNAs and scaffold RNAs. Although measurement of DNA methylation and regulatory non-coding RNAs is desirable for many biologists who are interested in exploring epigenetic regulation in their areas, conventional methods have limitations and are technically challenging. For instance, traditional siRNA detection through RNA hybridization requires relatively large amount of small RNAs and involves radioactive isotopes. An alternative approach is RT-qPCR that employs stem loop primers during reverse transcription; however, it requires a prerequisite that the exact sequences of siRNAs should be known.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 21%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 61%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 21 15%
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 19 June 2014.
All research outputs
#14,196,917
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#711
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,834
of 228,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 228,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.