↓ Skip to main content

Early origins and evolution of microRNAs and Piwi-interacting RNAs in animals

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, October 2008
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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 blog
3 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


473 Dimensions

Readers on

718 Mendeley
16 CiteULike
7 Connotea
Early origins and evolution of microRNAs and Piwi-interacting RNAs in animals
Published in
Nature, October 2008
DOI 10.1038/nature07415
Pubmed ID

Andrew Grimson, Mansi Srivastava, Bryony Fahey, Ben J. Woodcroft, H. Rosaria Chiang, Nicole King, Bernard M. Degnan, Daniel S. Rokhsar, David P. Bartel


In bilaterian animals, such as humans, flies and worms, hundreds of microRNAs (miRNAs), some conserved throughout bilaterian evolution, collectively regulate a substantial fraction of the transcriptome. In addition to miRNAs, other bilaterian small RNAs, known as Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), protect the genome from transposons. Here we identify small RNAs from animal phyla that diverged before the emergence of the Bilateria. The cnidarian Nematostella vectensis (starlet sea anemone), a close relative to the Bilateria, possesses an extensive repertoire of miRNA genes, two classes of piRNAs and a complement of proteins specific to small-RNA biology comparable to that of humans. The poriferan Amphimedon queenslandica (sponge), one of the simplest animals and a distant relative of the Bilateria, also possesses miRNAs, both classes of piRNAs and a full complement of the small-RNA machinery. Animal miRNA evolution seems to have been relatively dynamic, with precursor sizes and mature miRNA sequences differing greatly between poriferans, cnidarians and bilaterians. Nonetheless, miRNAs and piRNAs have been available as classes of riboregulators to shape gene expression throughout the evolution and radiation of animal phyla.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 718 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 26 4%
Spain 6 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Other 28 4%
Unknown 633 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 198 28%
Researcher 190 26%
Student > Master 70 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 62 9%
Student > Bachelor 45 6%
Other 124 17%
Unknown 29 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 478 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 130 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 2%
Neuroscience 10 1%
Computer Science 7 <1%
Other 34 5%
Unknown 45 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,472,025 outputs
Outputs from Nature
of 69,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 151,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
of 1,001 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,472,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.1. 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 151,211 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,001 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.