↓ Skip to main content

Conservation and Losses of Non-Coding RNAs in Avian Genomes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Conservation and Losses of Non-Coding RNAs in Avian Genomes
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0121797
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Here we present the results of a large-scale bioinformatics annotation of non-coding RNA loci in 48 avian genomes. Our approach uses probabilistic models of hand-curated families from the Rfam database to infer conserved RNA families within each avian genome. We supplement these annotations with predictions from the tRNA annotation tool, tRNAscan-SE and microRNAs from miRBase. We identify 34 lncRNA-associated loci that are conserved between birds and mammals and validate 12 of these in chicken. We report several intriguing cases where a reported mammalian lncRNA, but not its function, is conserved. We also demonstrate extensive conservation of classical ncRNAs (e.g., tRNAs) and more recently discovered ncRNAs (e.g., snoRNAs and miRNAs) in birds. Furthermore, we describe numerous "losses" of several RNA families, and attribute these to either genuine loss, divergence or missing data. In particular, we show that many of these losses are due to the challenges associated with assembling avian microchromosomes. These combined results illustrate the utility of applying homology-based methods for annotating novel vertebrate genomes.

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 11 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 57 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 %
New Zealand 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 52 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 21%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,687,890
of 26,852,251 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#104,650
of 235,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,338
of 279,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,615
of 6,483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,852,251 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 235,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 279,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,483 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 74% of its contemporaries.