↓ Skip to main content

Discovering non-random segregation of sister chromatids: the naïve treatment of a premature discovery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Discovering non-random segregation of sister chromatids: the naïve treatment of a premature discovery
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2012.00211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl G. Lark

Abstract

The discovery of non-random chromosome segregation (Figure 1) is discussed from the perspective of what was known in 1965 and 1966. The distinction between daughter, parent, or grandparent strands of DNA was developed in a bacterial system and led to the discovery that multiple copies of DNA elements of bacteria are not distributed randomly with respect to the age of the template strand. Experiments with higher eukaryotic cells demonstrated that during mitosis Mendel's laws were violated; and the initial serendipitous choice of eukaryotic cell system led to the striking example of non-random segregation of parent and grandparent DNA template strands in primary cultures of cells derived from mouse embryos. Attempts to extrapolate these findings to established tissue culture lines demonstrated that the property could be lost. Experiments using plant root tips demonstrated that the phenomenon exists in plants and that it was, at some level, under genetic control. Despite publication in major journals and symposia (Lark et al., 1966, 1967; Lark, 1967, 1969a,b,c) the potential implications of these findings were ignored for several decades. Here we explore possible reasons for the pre-maturity (Stent, 1972) of this discovery.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
United States 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 63%
Other 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#8,456,128
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#3,207
of 22,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,510
of 292,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#56
of 329 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,774 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 292,605 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 329 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.