↓ Skip to main content

MicroRNAs in opioid addiction: elucidating evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
MicroRNAs in opioid addiction: elucidating evolution
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2012.00241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily J. Wood, Leonard Lipovich

Abstract

Three reviews in the Frontiers Research Topic "Non-Coding RNA and Addiction" (He and Wang, 2012; Rodriguez, 2012; Zheng et al., 2012), grouped under the chapter "MicroRNAs and Morphine," focus on the contribution of microRNAs to opioid abuse. Although animal models have been fundamental to our understanding of addiction pathways, the assumption that microRNAs implicated in opioid tolerance - and their binding sites in mRNAs - are conserved in mammalian evolution was not examined by the authors. Inspired by recent reports which highlight a surprising lack of evolutionary conservation in non-coding RNA genes, in this perspective we use public genome, annotation, and transcriptome datasets to verify microRNA host gene, mature microRNA, and microRNA binding site conservation at key loci functional in opioid addiction. We reveal a complex evolutionary landscape in which certain directional regulatory edges of the microRNA-mRNA hub-and-spoke network lack pan-mammalian conservation.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 61%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#13,372,313
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#3,228
of 11,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,696
of 244,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#96
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,752 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 244,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.