↓ Skip to main content

Genome-wide profiling of long non-coding RNAs from tomato and a comparison with mRNAs associated with the regulation of fruit ripening

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Genome-wide profiling of long non-coding RNAs from tomato and a comparison with mRNAs associated with the regulation of fruit ripening
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12870-018-1300-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minghui Wang, Weihua Zhao, Lei Gao, Lingxia Zhao

Abstract

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are involved in multiple biological processes in both mammals and plants. There is growing evidence that they are associated with development; but their expression and regulation during fruit ripening in the model plant tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) has yet to be described. Following integration of 134 RNA-seq data sets, we identified 79,322 putative lncRNAs, consisting of 70,635 lincRNAs, 8085 antisense non-coding RNAs (ancRNAs) and 602 sense lncRNAs (slncRNAs). lncRNAs had specific features that are distinct from mRNAs, including tissue-specificity, and shorter and fewer exons. Notably, more than 5000 of the novel lincRNAs were found to be expressed across the mature green (MG), breaker (BR) and breaker plus 7 days (BR + 7) developmental stages. The differently expressed lincRNAs had different DNA methylation profiles from the mRNAs. Integrating transcriptome datasets and genome-wide screening enabled the identification of a comprehensive set of tomato lncRNAs. Here, we found that the lncRNAs DNA methylation profiles were different from those of mRNAs. This will help future investigation of lncRNA function, especially for the dissection of the molecular mechanisms involved in the regulation of fruit development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Master 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 17%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,708,425
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#1,507
of 3,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,264
of 327,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#27
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,316 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 327,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.