↓ Skip to main content

Animal Endo-SiRNAs

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 12: Computing siRNA and piRNA Overlap Signatures.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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.
Chapter title
Computing siRNA and piRNA Overlap Signatures.
Chapter number 12
Book title
Animal Endo-SiRNAs
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-0931-5_12
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-0930-8, 978-1-4939-0931-5
Authors

Christophe Antoniewski, Antoniewski, Christophe

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing approaches opened the possibility to precisely map full populations of small RNAs to the genomic loci from which they originate. A bioinformatic approach revealed a strong tendency of sense and antisense piRNAs to overlap with each other over ten nucleotides and had a major role in understanding the mechanisms of piRNA biogenesis. Using similar approaches, it is possible to detect a tendency of sense and antisense siRNAs to overlap over 19 nucleotides. Thus, the so-called overlap signature which describes the tendency of small RNA to map in a specific way relative to each other has become the approach of choice to identify and characterize specific classes of small RNAs. Although simple in essence, the bioinformatic methods used for this approach are not easily accessible to biologists. Here we provide a python software that can be run on most of desktop or laptop computers to compute small RNA signatures from files of sequencing read alignments. Moreover, we describe and illustrate step by step two different algorithms at the core of the software and which were previously used in a number of works.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Chemistry 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 March 2019.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#8,199
of 13,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,464
of 309,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#302
of 576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,410 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 309,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 576 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.