| Title |
The origin of introns and their role in eukaryogenesis: a compromise solution to the introns-early versus introns-late debate?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Direct, August 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6150-1-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eugene V Koonin |
| Abstract |
Ever since the discovery of 'genes in pieces' and mRNA splicing in eukaryotes, origin and evolution of spliceosomal introns have been considered within the conceptual framework of the 'introns early' versus 'introns late' debate. The 'introns early' hypothesis, which is closely linked to the so-called exon theory of gene evolution, posits that protein-coding genes were interrupted by numerous introns even at the earliest stages of life's evolution and that introns played a major role in the origin of proteins by facilitating recombination of sequences coding for small protein/peptide modules. Under this scenario, the absence of spliceosomal introns in prokaryotes is considered to be a result of "genome streamlining". The 'introns late' hypothesis counters that spliceosomal introns emerged only in eukaryotes, and moreover, have been inserted into protein-coding genes continuously throughout the evolution of eukaryotes. Beyond the formal dilemma, the more substantial side of this debate has to do with possible roles of introns in the evolution of eukaryotes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 401 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 2% |
| Germany | 6 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Croatia | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 2% |
| Unknown | 364 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 87 | 22% |
| Researcher | 77 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 60 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 10% |
| Professor | 26 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 14% |
| Unknown | 54 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 215 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 82 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 1% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 1% |
| Chemistry | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 28 | 7% |
| Unknown | 60 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,023,310
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#70
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,067
of 91,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 91,666 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.