↓ Skip to main content

Strategies to Annotate and Characterize Long Noncoding RNAs: Advantages and Pitfalls

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Genetics, July 2018
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Strategies to Annotate and Characterize Long Noncoding RNAs: Advantages and Pitfalls
Published in
Trends in Genetics, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.tig.2018.06.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The past decade has seen an explosion of interest in long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). However, despite the massive volume of scientific data implicating these transcripts in a plethora of molecular and cellular processes, a great deal of controversy surrounds these RNAs. One of the main reasons for this lies in the multiple unique features of lncRNAs which limit the available methods used to characterize them. Combined with their vast numbers and inadequate classification, comprehensive annotation of these transcripts becomes a daunting task. The solution to this complex challenge likely lies in deep understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each computational and empirical approach, and integration of multiple strategies to reduce noise, authenticate the results, and classify lncRNAs. We review here both the advantages and caveats of strategies commonly used for functional characterization and annotation of lncRNAs in the context of emerging conceptual guidelines for their application.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 176 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 %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 23%
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 72 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 19%
Computer Science 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 46 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,890,700
of 29,149,839 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Genetics
#649
of 2,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,644
of 329,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Genetics
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,149,839 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 329,303 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 59% of its contemporaries.