↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Genomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 14: Comparative RNA Genomics
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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.
Chapter title
Comparative RNA Genomics
Chapter number 14
Book title
Comparative Genomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7463-4_14
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7461-0, 978-1-4939-7463-4
Authors

Rolf Backofen, Jan Gorodkin, Ivo L. Hofacker, Peter F. Stadler

Abstract

Over the last two decades it has become clear that RNA is much more than just a boring intermediate in protein expression. Ancient RNAs still appear in the core information metabolism and comprise a surprisingly large component in bacterial gene regulation. A common theme with these types of mostly small RNAs is their reliance of conserved secondary structures. Large scale sequencing projects, on the other hand, have profoundly changed our understanding of eukaryotic genomes. Pervasively transcribed, they give rise to a plethora of large and evolutionarily extremely flexible noncoding RNAs that exert a vastly diverse array of molecule functions. In this chapter we provide a-necessarily incomplete-overview of the current state of comparative analysis of noncoding RNAs, emphasizing computational approaches as a means to gain a global picture of the modern RNA world.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 24%
Computer Science 5 6%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,988,407
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#595
of 13,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,190
of 445,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#37
of 1,482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,423 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 445,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.