↓ Skip to main content

Interplay of microRNA and epigenetic regulation in the human regulatory network

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Interplay of microRNA and epigenetic regulation in the human regulatory network
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00345
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Osella, Andrea Riba, Alessandro Testori, Davide Corà, Michele Caselle

Abstract

The expression of protein-coding genes is controlled by a complex network of regulatory interactions. It is becoming increasingly appreciated that post-transcriptional repression by microRNAs, a class of small non-coding RNAs, is a key layer of regulation in several biological processes. In this contribution, we discuss the interplay between microRNAs and epigenetic regulators. Among the mixed genetic circuits composed by these two different kinds of regulation, it seems that a central role is played by double-negative feedback loops in which a microRNA inhibits an epigenetic regulator and in turn is controlled at the epigenetic level by the same regulator. We discuss a few relevant properties of this class of network motifs and their potential role in cell differentiation. In particular, using mathematical modeling we show how this particular circuit can exhibit a switch-like behavior between two alternative steady states, while being robust to stochastic transitions between these two states, a feature presumably required for circuits involved in cell fate decision. Finally, we present a list of putative double-negative feedback loops from a literature survey combined with bioinformatic analysis, and discuss in detail a few examples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Computer Science 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 11 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 November 2014.
All research outputs
#4,640,187
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,405
of 13,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,030
of 267,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#16
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,777 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 267,873 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.