↓ Skip to main content

Inverse Symmetry in Complete Genomes and Whole-Genome Inverse Duplication

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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
Inverse Symmetry in Complete Genomes and Whole-Genome Inverse Duplication
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0007553
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sing-Guan Kong, Wen-Lang Fan, Hong-Da Chen, Zi-Ting Hsu, Nengji Zhou, Bo Zheng, Hoong-Chien Lee

Abstract

The cause of symmetry is usually subtle, and its study often leads to a deeper understanding of the bearer of the symmetry. To gain insight into the dynamics driving the growth and evolution of genomes, we conducted a comprehensive study of textual symmetries in 786 complete chromosomes. We focused on symmetry based on our belief that, in spite of their extreme diversity, genomes must share common dynamical principles and mechanisms that drive their growth and evolution, and that the most robust footprints of such dynamics are symmetry related. We found that while complement and reverse symmetries are essentially absent in genomic sequences, inverse-complement plus reverse-symmetry is prevalent in complex patterns in most chromosomes, a vast majority of which have near maximum global inverse symmetry. We also discovered relations that can quantitatively account for the long observed but unexplained phenomenon of -mer skews in genomes. Our results suggest segmental and whole-genome inverse duplications are important mechanisms in genome growth and evolution, probably because they are efficient means by which the genome can exploit its double-stranded structure to enrich its code-inventory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 2 6%
Germany 1 3%
Egypt 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 29 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 7 21%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Computer Science 3 9%
Mathematics 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,972,481
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#184,549
of 224,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,439
of 109,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#538
of 581 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 109,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 581 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.