↓ Skip to main content

Transcription coupled repair and biased insertion of human retrotransposon L1 in transcribed genes

Overview of attention for article published in Mobile DNA, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Transcription coupled repair and biased insertion of human retrotransposon L1 in transcribed genes
Published in
Mobile DNA, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13100-017-0100-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geraldine Servant, Vincent A. Streva, Prescott L. Deininger

Abstract

L1 retrotransposons inserted within genes in the human genome show a strong bias against sense orientation with respect to the gene. One suggested explanation for this observation was the possibility that L1 inserted randomly, but that there was negative selection against sense-oriented insertions. However, multiple studies have now found that de novo and polymorphic L1 insertions, which have little opportunity for selection to act, also show the same bias. Here we show that the transcription-coupled sub-pathway of nucleotide excision repair does not affect the overall rate of insertion of L1 elements, which is in contrast with the regulation by the global sub-pathway of nucleotide excision repair. The transcription-coupled subpathway does cause a strong bias against insertion in the sense orientation relative to genes. This suggests that a major portion of the L1 orientation bias might be generated during the process of insertion through the action of transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair.

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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
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 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,369,287
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Mobile DNA
#264
of 336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,631
of 439,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mobile DNA
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 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 336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 439,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.