↓ Skip to main content

Rapid evolution of noncoding RNAs: lack of conservation does not mean lack of function

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Genetics, November 2005
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
558 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
521 Mendeley
citeulike
15 CiteULike
connotea
5 Connotea
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
Rapid evolution of noncoding RNAs: lack of conservation does not mean lack of function
Published in
Trends in Genetics, November 2005
DOI 10.1016/j.tig.2005.10.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ken C. Pang, Martin C. Frith, John S. Mattick

Abstract

The mammalian transcriptome contains many non-protein-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), but most of these are of unclear significance and lack strong sequence conservation, prompting suggestions that they might be non-functional. However, certain long functional ncRNAs such as Air and Xist are also poorly conserved. In this article, we systematically analyzed the conservation of several groups of functional ncRNAs, including miRNAs, snoRNAs and longer ncRNAs whose function has been either documented or confidently predicted. As expected, miRNAs and snoRNAs were highly conserved. By contrast, the longer functional non-micro, non-sno ncRNAs were much less conserved with many displaying rapid sequence evolution. Our findings suggest that longer ncRNAs are under the influence of different evolutionary constraints and that the lack of conservation displayed by the thousands of candidate ncRNAs does not necessarily signify an absence of function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 521 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 2%
United Kingdom 7 1%
China 3 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 10 2%
Unknown 480 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 148 28%
Researcher 95 18%
Student > Master 71 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 5%
Other 82 16%
Unknown 61 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 249 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 131 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 4%
Computer Science 15 3%
Neuroscience 7 1%
Other 32 6%
Unknown 68 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 February 2014.
All research outputs
#2,864,000
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Genetics
#498
of 2,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,497
of 76,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Genetics
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 76,667 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.