↓ Skip to main content

Integrative transcriptome analysis suggest processing of a subset of long non-coding RNAs to small RNAs

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Integrative transcriptome analysis suggest processing of a subset of long non-coding RNAs to small RNAs
Published in
Biology Direct, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-7-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saakshi Jalali, Gopal Gunanathan Jayaraj, Vinod Scaria

Abstract

The availability of sequencing technology has enabled understanding of transcriptomes through genome-wide approaches including RNA-sequencing. Contrary to the previous assumption that large tracts of the eukaryotic genomes are not transcriptionally active, recent evidence from transcriptome sequencing approaches have revealed pervasive transcription in many genomes of higher eukaryotes. Many of these loci encode transcripts that have no obvious protein-coding potential and are designated as non-coding RNA (ncRNA). Non-coding RNAs are classified empirically as small and long non-coding RNAs based on the size of the functional RNAs. Each of these classes is further classified into functional subclasses. Although microRNAs (miRNA), one of the major subclass of ncRNAs, have been extensively studied for their roles in regulation of gene expression and involvement in a large number of patho-physiological processes, the functions of a large proportion of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNA) still remains elusive. We hypothesized that some lncRNAs could potentially be processed to small RNA and thus could have a dual regulatory output.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 33%
Researcher 25 26%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 12 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 January 2014.
All research outputs
#1,968,056
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#82
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,079
of 166,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 166,600 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them