↓ Skip to main content

Synonymous SNPs Provide Evidence for Selective Constraint on Human Exonic Splicing Enhancers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, November 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Synonymous SNPs Provide Evidence for Selective Constraint on Human Exonic Splicing Enhancers
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, November 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00239-005-0055-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Carlini, Jordan E. Genut

Abstract

The human SNP database was used to detect selection on 238 hexamers previously identified as exonic splicing enhancers (ESEs). We compared the distribution of the 238 putative ESEs in biallelic and triallelic SNPs within five different functional categories of the SNP database: synonymous, nonsynonymous, introns, UTRs, and nongenic SNPs. Since true ESEs do not function outside of exons, SNPs that disrupt ESE motifs were expected to be more common in nonexonic portions of the genome. Our results supported this expectation: ESEs were least prevalent within synonymous SNPs and most common in nongenic SNPs. There were approximately 11% fewer ESEs within synonymous biallelic SNPs than expected under no selective constraint. We also compared the frequency of neutral SNPs, those where neither allele was an ESE, with deleterious SNPs, those where one or more alleles was an ESE, across the five different functional classes of SNPs. In comparison with the other functional classes of SNPs, synonymous SNPs contained an excess of neutral variants (+1.64% and +6.04% for biallelic and triallelic SNPs, respectively) and a dearth of deleterious variants (-13.11% and -52.39% for biallelic and triallelic SNPs, respectively). The observed patterns were consistent with purifying selection on the 238 hexamers to maintain their function as ESEs. However, in contrast to previous work, we did not find evidence for selection to maintain ESE function at nonsynonymous SNPs because selection at the protein level probably obscured any difference at the level of ESE function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 12 24%
Professor 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Computer Science 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 4 8%
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 03 January 2011.
All research outputs
#7,453,827
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#450
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,818
of 146,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 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 146,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.