↓ Skip to main content

Secondary structure impacts patterns of selection in human lncRNAs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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.
Title
Secondary structure impacts patterns of selection in human lncRNAs
Published in
BMC Biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12915-016-0283-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cinta Pegueroles, Toni Gabaldón

Abstract

Metazoans transcribe many long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) that are poorly conserved and whose function remains unknown. This has raised the questions of what fraction of the predicted lncRNAs is actually functional, and whether selection can effectively constrain lncRNAs in species with small effective population sizes such as human populations. Here we evaluate signatures of selection in human lncRNAs using inter-specific data and intra-specific comparisons from five major populations, as well as by assessing relationships between sequence variation and predictions of secondary structure. In all analyses we included a reference of functionally characterized lncRNAs. Altogether, our results show compelling evidence of recent purifying selection acting on both characterized and predicted lncRNAs. We found that RNA secondary structure constrains sequence variation in lncRNAs, so that polymorphisms are depleted in paired regions with low accessibility and tend to be neutral with respect to structural stability. Important implications of our results are that secondary structure plays a role in the functionality of lncRNAs, and that the set of predicted lncRNAs contains a large fraction of functional ones that may play key roles that remain to be discovered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Sweden 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 32%
Computer Science 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,783,804
of 16,028,091 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#725
of 1,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,811
of 266,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,028,091 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 266,950 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them