↓ Skip to main content

Very Few RNA and DNA Sequence Differences in the Human Transcriptome

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
citeulike
7 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
Very Few RNA and DNA Sequence Differences in the Human Transcriptome
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025842
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel R. Schrider, Jean-Francois Gout, Matthew W. Hahn

Abstract

RNA editing is an important cellular process by which the nucleotides in a mature RNA transcript are altered to cause them to differ from the corresponding DNA sequence. While this process yields essential transcripts in humans and other organisms, it is believed to occur at a relatively small number of loci. The rarity of RNA editing has been challenged by a recent comparison of human RNA and DNA sequence data from 27 individuals, which revealed that over 10,000 human exonic sites appear to exhibit RNA-DNA differences (RDDs). Many of these differences could not have been caused by either of the two previously known human RNA editing mechanisms--ADAR-mediated A→G substitutions or APOBEC1-mediated C→U switches--suggesting that a previously unknown mechanism of RNA editing may be active in humans. Here, we reanalyze these data and demonstrate that genomic sequences exist in these same individuals or in the human genome that match the majority of RDDs. Our results suggest that the majority of these RDD events were observed due to accurate transcription of sequences paralogous to the apparently edited gene but differing at the edited site. In light of our results it seems prudent to conclude that if indeed an unknown mechanism is causing RDD events in humans, such events occur at a much lower frequency than originally proposed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 6%
United Kingdom 5 3%
Germany 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 121 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Student > Master 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 15 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 93 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 15 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,036,449
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,518
of 213,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,288
of 140,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#137
of 2,592 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213,708 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 140,114 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,592 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.