↓ Skip to main content

An Overview of the Introns-First Theory

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
An Overview of the Introns-First Theory
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00239-009-9279-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Penny, Marc P. Hoeppner, Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares

Abstract

We review the introns-first hypothesis a decade after it was first proposed. It is that exons emerged from non-coding regions interspersed between RNA genes in an early RNA world, and is a subcomponent of a more general 'RNA-continuity' hypothesis. The latter is that some RNA-based systems, especially in RNA processing, are 'relics' that can be traced back either to the RNA world that preceded both DNA and encoded protein synthesis or to the later ribonucleoprotein (RNP) world (before DNA took over the main coding role). RNA-continuity is based on independent evidence-in particular, the relative inefficiency of RNA catalysis compared with protein catalysis-and leads to a wide range of predictions, ranging from the origin of the ribosome, the spliceosome, small nucleolar RNAs, RNases P and MRP, and mRNA, and it is consistent with the wide involvement of RNA-processing and regulation of RNA in modern eukaryotes. While there may still be cause to withhold judgement on intron origins, there is strong evidence against introns being uncommon in the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA), and expanding only within extant eukaryotic groups-the 'very-late' intron invasion model. Similarly, it is clear that there are selective forces on numbers and positions of introns; their existence may not always be neutral. There is still a range of viable alternatives, including introns first, early, and 'latish' (i.e. well established in LECA), and regardless of which is ultimately correct, it pays to separate out various questions and to focus on testing the predictions of sub-theories.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Canada 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 117 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Professor 12 9%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 7 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 73 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 22%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 5%
Chemistry 6 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 9 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 October 2020.
All research outputs
#7,451,284
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#450
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,058
of 92,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 92,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.