↓ Skip to main content

The Excess of Small Inverted Repeats in Prokaryotes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The Excess of Small Inverted Repeats in Prokaryotes
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, August 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00239-008-9151-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel D. Ladoukakis, Adam Eyre-Walker

Abstract

Recent analyses have shown that there is a large excess of perfect inverted repeats in many prokaryotic genomes but not in eukaryotic ones. This difference could be due to a genuine difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes or to differences in the methods and types of data analyzed--full genome versus protein coding sequences. We used simulations to show that the method used previously tends to underestimate the expected number of inverted repeats. However, this bias is not large and cannot explain the excess of inverted repeats observed in real data. In contrast, our method is unbiased. When both methods are applied to bacterial protein coding sequences they both detect an excess of inverted repeats, which is much lower than previously reported in whole prokaryotic genomes. This suggests that the reported large excess of inverted repeats is due to repeats found in intergenic regions. These repeats could be due to transcription factor binding sites, or other types of repetitive DNA, on opposite strands of the DNA sequence. In contrast, the smaller, but significant, excess of inverted repeats that we report in protein coding sequences may be due to sequence-directed mutagenesis (SDM). SDM is a process where one copy of a small, imperfect, inverted repeat corrects the other copy via strand misalignment, resulting in a perfect repeat and a series of mutations. We show by simulation that even very low levels of SDM, relative to the rate of point mutation, can generate a substantial excess of inverted repeats.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Researcher 5 22%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
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 16 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,451,584
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#450
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,013
of 85,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 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 85,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.