↓ Skip to main content

Conserved Substitution Patterns around Nucleosome Footprints in Eukaryotes and Archaea Derive from Frequent Nucleosome Repositioning through Evolution

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, November 2013
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

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.
Title
Conserved Substitution Patterns around Nucleosome Footprints in Eukaryotes and Archaea Derive from Frequent Nucleosome Repositioning through Evolution
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, November 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003373
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Warnecke, Erin A. Becker, Marc T. Facciotti, Corey Nislow, Ben Lehner

Abstract

Nucleosomes, the basic repeat units of eukaryotic chromatin, have been suggested to influence the evolution of eukaryotic genomes, both by altering the propensity of DNA to mutate and by selection acting to maintain or exclude nucleosomes in particular locations. Contrary to the popular idea that nucleosomes are unique to eukaryotes, histone proteins have also been discovered in some archaeal genomes. Archaeal nucleosomes, however, are quite unlike their eukaryotic counterparts in many respects, including their assembly into tetramers (rather than octamers) from histone proteins that lack N- and C-terminal tails. Here, we show that despite these fundamental differences the association between nucleosome footprints and sequence evolution is strikingly conserved between humans and the model archaeon Haloferax volcanii. In light of this finding we examine whether selection or mutation can explain concordant substitution patterns in the two kingdoms. Unexpectedly, we find that neither the mutation nor the selection model are sufficient to explain the observed association between nucleosomes and sequence divergence. Instead, we demonstrate that nucleosome-associated substitution patterns are more consistent with a third model where sequence divergence results in frequent repositioning of nucleosomes during evolution. Indeed, we show that nucleosome repositioning is both necessary and largely sufficient to explain the association between current nucleosome positions and biased substitution patterns. This finding highlights the importance of considering the direction of causality between genetic and epigenetic change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

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.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 28%
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor 6 11%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 30%
Mathematics 1 2%
Chemistry 1 2%
Unknown 6 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 February 2015.
All research outputs
#5,315,263
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,048
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,619
of 315,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#64
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 315,555 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 56% of its contemporaries.