↓ Skip to main content

Intron specificity in pre-mRNA splicing

Overview of attention for article published in Current Genetics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Intron specificity in pre-mRNA splicing
Published in
Current Genetics, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00294-017-0802-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shravan Kumar Mishra, Poonam Thakran

Abstract

The occurrence of spliceosomal introns in eukaryotic genomes is highly diverse and ranges from few introns in an organism to multiple introns per gene. Introns vary with respect to their lengths, strengths of splicing signals, and position in resident genes. Higher intronic density and diversity in genetically complex organisms relies on increased efficiency and accuracy of spliceosomes for pre-mRNA splicing. Since intron diversity is critical for functions in RNA stability, regulation of gene expression and alternative splicing, RNA-binding proteins, spliceosomal regulatory factors and post-translational modifications of splicing factors ought to make the splicing process intron-specific. We recently reported function and regulation of a ubiquitin fold harboring splicing regulator, Sde2, which following activation by ubiquitin-specific proteases facilitates excision of selected introns from a subset of multi-intronic genes in Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Thakran et al. EMBO J, https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201796751 , 2017). By reviewing our findings with understandings of intron functions and regulated splicing processes, we propose possible functions and mechanism of intron-specific pre-mRNA splicing and suggest that this process is crucial to highlight importance of introns in eukaryotic genomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Unspecified 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Unspecified 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#6,769,504
of 12,576,527 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetics
#612
of 910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,664
of 382,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetics
#13
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,576,527 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 910 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 382,046 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 69% of its contemporaries.