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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Detrimental Effects of RNAi: A Cautionary Note on Its Use in Drosophila Ageing Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0045367 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nazif Alic, Matthew P. Hoddinott, Andrea Foley, Cathy Slack, Matthew D. W. Piper, Linda Partridge |
| Abstract |
RNA interference (RNAi) provides an important tool for gene function discovery. It has been widely exploited in Caenorhabditis elegans ageing research because it does not appear to have any non-specific effects on ageing-related traits in that model organism. We show here that ubiquitous, adult-onset activation of the RNAi machinery, achieved by expressing a double stranded RNA targeting GFP or lacZ for degradation, or by increasing expression of Dicer substantially reduces lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster. Induction of GFPRNAi construct also alters the response of lifespan to nutrition, exacerbating the lifespan-shortening effects of food containing a high quantity of yeast. Our study indicates that activation of the RNAi machinery may have sequence-independent side-effects on lifespan, and that caution needs to be exercised when employing ubiquitous RNAi in Drosophila ageing studies. However, we also show that RNAi restricted to certain tissues may not be detrimental to lifespan. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 19% |
| Researcher | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 October 2012.
All research outputs
#3,956,562
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#56,451
of 193,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,766
of 170,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#847
of 4,327 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,573 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 70% 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 170,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,327 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.