↓ Skip to main content

Deconstructing the Dogma

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, October 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Title
Deconstructing the Dogma
Published in
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, October 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04991.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

John S Mattick

Abstract

Since the birth of molecular biology it has been generally assumed that most genetic information is transacted by proteins, and that RNA plays an intermediary role. This led to the subsidiary assumption that the vast tracts of noncoding sequences in the genomes of higher organisms are largely nonfunctional, despite the fact that they are transcribed. These assumptions have since become articles of faith, but they are not necessarily correct. I propose an alternative evolutionary history whereby developmental and cognitive complexity has arisen by constructing sophisticated RNA-based regulatory networks that interact with generic effector complexes to control gene expression patterns and the epigenetic trajectories of differentiation and development. Environmental information can also be conveyed into this regulatory system via RNA editing, especially in the brain. Moreover, the observations that RNA-directed epigenetic changes can be inherited raises the intriguing question: has evolution learnt how to learn?

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
Germany 2 2%
Norway 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 94 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 18%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Mathematics 2 2%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 9 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 December 2012.
All research outputs
#8,061,309
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#4,162
of 11,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,011
of 97,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
#53
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 97,244 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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 52% of its contemporaries.