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.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Sibling rivalry: related bacterial small RNAs and their redundant and non-redundant roles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2014.00151 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clayton C. Caswell, Amanda G. Oglesby-Sherrouse, Erin R. Murphy |
| Abstract |
Small RNA molecules (sRNAs) are now recognized as key regulators controlling bacterial gene expression, as sRNAs provide a quick and efficient means of positively or negatively altering the expression of specific genes. To date, numerous sRNAs have been identified and characterized in a myriad of bacterial species, but more recently, a theme in bacterial sRNAs has emerged: the presence of more than one highly related sRNAs produced by a given bacterium, here termed sibling sRNAs. Sibling sRNAs are those that are highly similar at the nucleotide level, and while it might be expected that sibling sRNAs exert identical regulatory functions on the expression of target genes based on their high degree of relatedness, emerging evidence is demonstrating that this is not always the case. Indeed, there are several examples of bacterial sibling sRNAs with non-redundant regulatory functions, but there are also instances of apparent regulatory redundancy between sibling sRNAs. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge of bacterial sibling sRNAs, and also discusses important questions about the significance and evolutionary implications of this emerging class of regulators. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 27% |
| Researcher | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 22% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
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 13 May 2021.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#1,597
of 6,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,395
of 260,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 260,393 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.