↓ Skip to main content

Hundreds of putatively functional small open reading frames in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Biology (Online Edition), January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Hundreds of putatively functional small open reading frames in Drosophila
Published in
Genome Biology (Online Edition), January 2011
DOI 10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-r118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Ladoukakis, Vini Pereira, Emile G Magny, Adam Eyre-Walker, Juan Couso

Abstract

The relationship between DNA sequence and encoded information is still an unsolved puzzle. The number of protein-coding genes in higher eukaryotes identified by genome projects is lower than was expected, while a considerable amount of putatively non-coding transcription has been detected. Functional small open reading frames (smORFs) are known to exist in several organisms. However, coding sequence detection methods are biased against detecting such very short open reading frames. Thus, a substantial number of non-canonical coding regions encoding short peptides might await characterization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Denmark 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 164 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 19%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 23 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 71 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Computer Science 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 25 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#933,296
of 21,738,040 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#787
of 4,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,899
of 248,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology (Online Edition)
#21
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,738,040 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 248,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.