↓ Skip to main content

Control of Pre-mRNA Splicing by the General Splicing Factors PUF60 and U2AF65

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Control of Pre-mRNA Splicing by the General Splicing Factors PUF60 and U2AF65
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0000538
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle L. Hastings, Eric Allemand, Dominik M. Duelli, Michael P. Myers, Adrian R. Krainer

Abstract

Pre-mRNA splicing is a crucial step in gene expression, and accurate recognition of splice sites is an essential part of this process. Splice sites with weak matches to the consensus sequences are common, though it is not clear how such sites are efficiently utilized. Using an in vitro splicing-complementation approach, we identified PUF60 as a factor that promotes splicing of an intron with a weak 3' splice-site. PUF60 has homology to U2AF(65), a general splicing factor that facilitates 3' splice-site recognition at the early stages of spliceosome assembly. We demonstrate that PUF60 can functionally substitute for U2AF(65)in vitro, but splicing is strongly stimulated by the presence of both proteins. Reduction of either PUF60 or U2AF(65) in cells alters the splicing pattern of endogenous transcripts, consistent with the idea that regulation of PUF60 and U2AF(65) levels can dictate alternative splicing patterns. Our results indicate that recognition of 3' splice sites involves different U2AF-like molecules, and that modulation of these general splicing factors can have profound effects on splicing.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 94 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 21%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 21 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,377,613
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,349
of 193,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,780
of 68,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#96
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 68,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.