↓ Skip to main content

Cofactor squelching: Artifact or fact?

Overview of attention for article published in BioEssays, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
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
Cofactor squelching: Artifact or fact?
Published in
BioEssays, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/bies.201600034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Søren Fisker Schmidt, Bjørk Ditlev Larsen, Anne Loft, Susanne Mandrup

Abstract

Cofactor squelching is the term used to describe competition between transcription factors (TFs) for a limited amount of cofactors in a cell with the functional consequence that TFs in a given cell interfere with the activity of each other. Since cofactor squelching was proposed based primarily on reporter assays some 30 years ago, it has remained controversial, and the idea that it could be a physiologically relevant mechanism for transcriptional repression has not received much support. However, recent genome-wide studies have demonstrated that signal-dependent TFs are very often absent from the enhancers that are acutely repressed by those signals, which is consistent with an indirect mechanism of repression such as squelching. Here we review these recent studies in the light of the classical studies of cofactor squelching, and we discuss how TF cooperativity in so-called hotspots and super-enhancers may sensitize these to cofactor squelching.

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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 33%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Engineering 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,207,425
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#2,137
of 2,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,376
of 347,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#26
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 347,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.