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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Apoptotic Lymphocytes of H. sapiens Lose Nucleosomes in GC-Rich Promoters
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003760 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergey Hosid, Ilya Ioshikhes |
| Abstract |
We analyzed two sets of human CD4+ nucleosomal DNA directly sequenced by Illumina (Solexa) high throughput sequencing method. The first set has ∼40 M sequences and was produced from the normal CD4+ T lymphocytes by micrococcal nuclease. The second set has ∼44 M sequences and was obtained from peripheral blood lymphocytes by apoptotic nucleases. The different nucleosome sets showed similar dinucleotide positioning AA/TT, GG/CC, and RR/YY (R is purine, Y - pyrimidine) patterns with periods of 10-10.4 bp. Peaks of GG/CC and AA/TT patterns were shifted by 5 bp from each other. Two types of promoters in H. sapiens: AT and GC-rich were identified. AT-rich promoters in apoptotic cell had +1 nucleosome shifts 50-60 bp downstream from those in normal lymphocytes. GC-rich promoters in apoptotic cells lost 80% of nucleosomes around transcription start sites as well as in total DNA. Nucleosome positioning was predicted by combination of {AA, TT}, {GG, CC}, {WW, SS} and {RR, YY} patterns. In our study we found that the combinations of {AA, TT} and {GG, CC} provide the best results and successfully mapped 33% of nucleosomes 147 bp long with precision ±15 bp (only 31/147 or 21% is expected). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| France | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 33% |
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 44% |
| Engineering | 1 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,219
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,040
of 239,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#117
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 239,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.