↓ Skip to main content

Gene overlapping and size constraints in the viral world

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Gene overlapping and size constraints in the viral world
Published in
Biology Direct, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13062-016-0128-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadav Brandes, Michal Linial

Abstract

Viruses are the simplest replicating units, characterized by a limited number of coding genes and an exceptionally high rate of overlapping genes. We sought a unified evolutionary explanation that accounts for their genome sizes, gene overlapping and capsid properties. We performed an unbiased statistical analysis of ~100 families within ~400 genera that comprise the currently known viral world. We found that the volume utilization of capsids is often low, and greatly varies among viral families. Furthermore, although viruses span three orders of magnitude in genome length, they almost never have over 1500 overlapping nucleotides, or over four significantly overlapping genes per virus. Our findings undermine the generality of the compression theory, which emphasizes optimal packing and length dependency to explain overlapping genes and capsid size in viral genomes. Instead, we propose that gene novelty and evolution exploration offer better explanations to size constraints and gene overlapping in all viruses. This article was reviewed by Arne Elofsson and David Kreil.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 February 2024.
All research outputs
#6,109,394
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#216
of 493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,310
of 335,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 335,125 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.