↓ Skip to main content

Non-coding RNA: what is functional and what is junk?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
66 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
19 Wikipedia pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Readers on

mendeley
1188 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Non-coding RNA: what is functional and what is junk?
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander F. Palazzo, Eliza S. Lee

Abstract

The genomes of large multicellular eukaryotes are mostly comprised of non-protein coding DNA. Although there has been much agreement that a small fraction of these genomes has important biological functions, there has been much debate as to whether the rest contributes to development and/or homeostasis. Much of the speculation has centered on the genomic regions that are transcribed into RNA at some low level. Unfortunately these RNAs have been arbitrarily assigned various names, such as "intergenic RNA," "long non-coding RNAs" etc., which have led to some confusion in the field. Many researchers believe that these transcripts represent a vast, unchartered world of functional non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), simply because they exist. However, there are reasons to question this Panglossian view because it ignores our current understanding of how evolution shapes eukaryotic genomes and how the gene expression machinery works in eukaryotic cells. Although there are undoubtedly many more functional ncRNAs yet to be discovered and characterized, it is also likely that many of these transcripts are simply junk. Here, we discuss how to determine whether any given ncRNA has a function. Importantly, we advocate that in the absence of any such data, the appropriate null hypothesis is that the RNA in question is junk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 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 1,188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 1175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 263 22%
Student > Master 173 15%
Student > Bachelor 160 13%
Researcher 148 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 65 5%
Other 126 11%
Unknown 253 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 417 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 252 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 72 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 27 2%
Chemistry 24 2%
Other 111 9%
Unknown 285 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#800,129
of 25,163,238 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#124
of 13,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,750
of 364,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#3
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,545 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 364,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.