↓ Skip to main content

Evolution of Eukaryal and Archaeal Pseudouridine Synthase Pus10

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Evolution of Eukaryal and Archaeal Pseudouridine Synthase Pus10
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00239-018-9827-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Fitzek, Archi Joardar, Ramesh Gupta, Matt Geisler

Abstract

In archaea, pseudouridine (Ψ) synthase Pus10 modifies uridine (U) to Ψ at positions 54 and 55 of tRNA. In contrast, Pus10 is not found in bacteria, where modifications at those two positions are carried out by TrmA (U54 to m5U54) and TruB (U55 to Ψ55). Many eukaryotes have an apparent redundancy; their genomes contain orthologs of archaeal Pus10 and bacterial TrmA and TruB. Although eukaryal Pus10 genes share a conserved catalytic domain with archaeal Pus10 genes, their biological roles are not clear for the two reasons. First, experimental evidence suggests that human Pus10 participates in apoptosis induced by the tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand. Whether the function of human Pus10 is in place or in addition to of Ψ synthesis in tRNA is unknown. Second, Pus10 is found in earlier evolutionary branches of fungi (such as chytrid Batrachochytrium) but is absent in all dikaryon fungi surveyed (Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes). We did a comprehensive analysis of sequenced genomes and found that orthologs of Pus10, TrmA, and TruB were present in all the animals, plants, and protozoa surveyed. This indicates that the common eukaryotic ancestor possesses all the three genes. Next, we examined 116 archaeal and eukaryotic Pus10 protein sequences to find that Pus10 existed as a single copy gene in all the surveyed genomes despite ancestral whole genome duplications had occurred. This indicates a possible deleterious gene dosage effect. Our results suggest that functional redundancy result in gene loss or neofunctionalization in different evolutionary lineages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 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 > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,544,407
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#456
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,228
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 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 1,451 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 441,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.