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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ribosomal tethering and clustering as mechanisms for translation initiation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.0608212103 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen A. Chappell, Gerald M. Edelman, Vincent P. Mauro |
| Abstract |
Eukaryotic mRNAs often recruit ribosomal subunits some distance upstream of the initiation codon; however, the mechanisms by which they reach the initiation codon remain to be fully elucidated. Although scanning is a widely accepted model, evidence for alternative mechanisms has accumulated. We previously suggested that this process may involve tethering of ribosomal complexes to the mRNA, in which the intervening mRNA is bypassed, or clustering, in which the initiation codon is reached by dynamic binding and release of ribosomal subunits at internal sites. The present studies tested the feasibility of these ideas by using model mRNAs and revealed that translation efficiency varied with the distance between the site of ribosomal recruitment and the initiation codon. The present studies also showed that translation could initiate efficiently at AUG codons located upstream of an internal site. These observations are consistent with ribosomal tethering at the cap structure and clustering at internal sites. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 58 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 28% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,380,749
of 24,622,191 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#27,765
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,897
of 165,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#98
of 650 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,622,191 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 165,517 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 650 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.