↓ Skip to main content

Decoupling circadian clock protein turnover from circadian period determination

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)


129 Dimensions

Readers on

206 Mendeley
3 CiteULike
Decoupling circadian clock protein turnover from circadian period determination
Published in
Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1257277
Pubmed ID

Luis F. Larrondo, Consuelo Olivares-Yañez, Christopher L. Baker, Jennifer J. Loros, Jay C. Dunlap


The mechanistic basis of eukaryotic circadian oscillators in model systems as diverse as Neurospora, Drosophila, and mammalian cells is thought to be a transcription-and-translation-based negative feedback loop, wherein progressive and controlled phosphorylation of one or more negative elements ultimately elicits their own proteasome-mediated degradation, thereby releasing negative feedback and determining circadian period length. The Neurospora crassa circadian negative element FREQUENCY (FRQ) exemplifies such proteins; it is progressively phosphorylated at more than 100 sites, and strains bearing alleles of frq with anomalous phosphorylation display abnormal stability of FRQ that is well correlated with altered periods or apparent arrhythmicity. Unexpectedly, we unveiled normal circadian oscillations that reflect the allelic state of frq but that persist in the absence of typical degradation of FRQ. This manifest uncoupling of negative element turnover from circadian period length determination is not consistent with the consensus eukaryotic circadian model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 194 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 27%
Researcher 40 19%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Professor 11 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 25 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Chemistry 5 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 36 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
of 23,108,064 outputs
Outputs from Science
of 78,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 354,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
of 1,112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,108,064 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 78,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 62.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 354,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,112 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 74% of its contemporaries.