↓ Skip to main content

Identification and function of long non-coding RNA

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 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
Identification and function of long non-coding RNA
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2013.00168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl Ernst, Cynthia C. Morton

Abstract

Long non-coding (lnc) RNAs are defined as non-protein coding RNAs distinct from housekeeping RNAs such as tRNAs, rRNAs, and snRNAs, and independent from small RNAs with specific molecular processing machinery such as micro- or piwi-RNAs. Recent studies of lncRNAs across different species have revealed a diverse population of RNA molecules of differing size and function. RNA sequencing studies suggest transcription throughout the genome, so there is a need to understand how sequence relates to functional and structural relationships amongst RNA molecules. Our synthesis of recent studies suggests that neither size, presence of a poly-A tail, splicing, direction of transcription, nor strand specificity are of importance to lncRNA function. Rather, relative genomic position in relation to a target is fundamentally important. In this review, we describe issues of key importance in functional assessment of lncRNA and how this might apply to lncRNAs important in neurodevelopment.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 187 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 21%
Student > Master 35 18%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 29 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,207,295
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#3,547
of 4,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,792
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#156
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.