↓ Skip to main content

Robust Identification of Noncoding RNA from Transcriptomes Requires Phylogenetically-Informed Sampling

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Robust Identification of Noncoding RNA from Transcriptomes Requires Phylogenetically-Informed Sampling
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003907
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Noncoding RNAs are integral to a wide range of biological processes, including translation, gene regulation, host-pathogen interactions and environmental sensing. While genomics is now a mature field, our capacity to identify noncoding RNA elements in bacterial and archaeal genomes is hampered by the difficulty of de novo identification. The emergence of new technologies for characterizing transcriptome outputs, notably RNA-seq, are improving noncoding RNA identification and expression quantification. However, a major challenge is to robustly distinguish functional outputs from transcriptional noise. To establish whether annotation of existing transcriptome data has effectively captured all functional outputs, we analysed over 400 publicly available RNA-seq datasets spanning 37 different Archaea and Bacteria. Using comparative tools, we identify close to a thousand highly-expressed candidate noncoding RNAs. However, our analyses reveal that capacity to identify noncoding RNA outputs is strongly dependent on phylogenetic sampling. Surprisingly, and in stark contrast to protein-coding genes, the phylogenetic window for effective use of comparative methods is perversely narrow: aggregating public datasets only produced one phylogenetic cluster where these tools could be used to robustly separate unannotated noncoding RNAs from a null hypothesis of transcriptional noise. Our results show that for the full potential of transcriptomics data to be realized, a change in experimental design is paramount: effective transcriptomics requires phylogeny-aware sampling.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Poland 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 78 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 31%
Researcher 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 22%
Computer Science 4 4%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 22 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,858,114
of 32,346,385 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,327
of 10,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,053
of 295,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#21
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,346,385 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 295,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.