↓ Skip to main content

Asymmetric cell division requires specific mechanisms for adjusting global transcription

Overview of attention for article published in Nucleic Acids Research, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Asymmetric cell division requires specific mechanisms for adjusting global transcription
Published in
Nucleic Acids Research, October 2017
DOI 10.1093/nar/gkx974
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adriana Mena, Daniel A. Medina, José García-Martínez, Victoria Begley, Abhyudai Singh, Sebastián Chávez, Mari C. Muñoz-Centeno, José E. Pérez-Ortín

Abstract

Most cells divide symmetrically into two approximately identical cells. There are many examples, however, of asymmetric cell division that can generate sibling cell size differences. Whereas physical asymmetric division mechanisms and cell fate consequences have been investigated, the specific problem caused by asymmetric division at the transcription level has not yet been addressed. In symmetrically dividing cells the nascent transcription rate increases in parallel to cell volume to compensate it by keeping the actual mRNA synthesis rate constant. This cannot apply to the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae , where this mechanism would provoke a never-ending increasing mRNA synthesis rate in smaller daughter cells. We show here that, contrarily to other eukaryotes with symmetric division, budding yeast keeps the nascent transcription rates of its RNA polymerases constant and increases mRNA stability. This control on RNA pol II-dependent transcription rate is obtained by controlling the cellular concentration of this enzyme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Unspecified 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 33%
Unspecified 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,667,361
of 12,269,011 outputs
Outputs from Nucleic Acids Research
#16,896
of 20,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,382
of 344,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nucleic Acids Research
#282
of 376 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,269,011 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 344,109 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 376 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.