↓ Skip to main content

On the possibility of death of new genes – evidence from the deletion of de novo microRNAs

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 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
On the possibility of death of new genes – evidence from the deletion of de novo microRNAs
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4755-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guang-An Lu, Yixin Zhao, Zhongqi Liufu, Chung-I Wu

Abstract

New genes are constantly formed, sometimes from non-genic sequences, creating what is referred to as de novo genes. Since the total number of genes remains relatively steady, gene deaths likely balance out new births. In metazoan genomes, microRNAs (miRs) genes, small and non-coding, account for the bulk of functional de novo genes and are particularly suited to the investigation of gene death. In this study, we discover a Drosophila-specific de novo miRNA (mir-977) that may be facing impending death. Strikingly, after this testis-specific gene is deleted from D. melanogaster, most components of male fitness increase, rather than decrease as had been expected. These components include male viability, fertility and males' ability to repress female re-mating. Given that mir-977 has a negative fitness effect in D. melanogaster, this de novo gene with an adaptive history for over 60 Myrs may be facing elimination. In some other species where mir-977 is not found, gene death may have already happened. The surprising result suggests that de novo genes, constantly rising and falling during evolution, may often be transiently adaptive and then purged from the genome.

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 > Bachelor 3 17%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Chemistry 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,526,239
of 23,075,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,724
of 10,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,081
of 330,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#156
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,075,872 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 10,702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 330,225 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 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.