↓ Skip to main content

PAP- and GLD-2-type poly(A) polymerases are required sequentially in cytoplasmic polyadenylation and oogenesis in Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Development (09501991), April 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
99 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.
Article details
Title
PAP- and GLD-2-type poly(A) polymerases are required sequentially in cytoplasmic polyadenylation and oogenesis in Drosophila
Published in
Development (09501991), April 2008
DOI 10.1242/dev.021444
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cytoplasmic polyadenylation has an essential role in activating maternal mRNA translation during early development. In vertebrates, the reaction requires CPEB, an RNA-binding protein and the poly(A) polymerase GLD-2. GLD-2-type poly(A) polymerases form a family clearly distinguishable from canonical poly(A) polymerases (PAPs). In Drosophila, canonical PAP is involved in cytoplasmic polyadenylation with Orb, the Drosophila CPEB, during mid-oogenesis. We show that the female germline GLD-2 is encoded by wispy. Wispy acts as a poly(A) polymerase in a tethering assay and in vivo for cytoplasmic polyadenylation of specific mRNA targets during late oogenesis and early embryogenesis. wispy function is required at the final stage of oogenesis for metaphase of meiosis I arrest and for progression beyond this stage. By contrast, canonical PAP acts with Orb for the earliest steps of oogenesis. Both Wispy and PAP interact with Orb genetically and physically in an ovarian complex. We conclude that two distinct poly(A) polymerases have a role in cytoplasmic polyadenylation in the female germline, each of them being specifically required for different steps of oogenesis.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 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 2 2%
Portugal 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 93 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 29%
Researcher 20 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 17 17%
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 26 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,543,550
of 34,826,706 outputs
Outputs from Development (09501991)
#6,592
of 11,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,450
of 136,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Development (09501991)
#28
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,826,706 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 11,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 136,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.