↓ Skip to main content

RNA Decay and RNA Silencing in Plants: Competition or Collaboration?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
RNA Decay and RNA Silencing in Plants: Competition or Collaboration?
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2011.00099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Christie, Christopher A. Brosnan, Joseph A. Rothnagel, Bernard J. Carroll

Abstract

Initiation of RNA polymerase II transcription signals the beginning of a series of physically and functionally coupled pre-mRNA processing events that transform an RNA transcript into a highly structured, mature ribonucleoprotein complex. With such a complexity of co-transcriptional processes comes the need to identify and degrade improperly processed transcripts. Quality control of mRNA expression primarily involves exonucleolytic degradation of aberrant RNAs. RNA silencing, on the other hand, tends to be viewed separately as a pathway that primarily functions in regulating endogenous gene expression and in genome defense against transposons and viruses. Here, we review current knowledge of these pathways as they exist in plants and draw parallels to similar pathways in other eukaryotes. We then highlight some unexplored overlaps that exist between the RNA silencing and RNA decay pathways of plants, as evidenced by their shared RNA substrates and shared genetic requirements.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 64%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 December 2011.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#9,081
of 19,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,605
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#17
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,843 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 57% of its contemporaries.