↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Engineering 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

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
#13,501,310
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Current Genetics
#757
of 1,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,248
of 442,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Genetics
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,203 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 442,518 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.