↓ Skip to main content

LncRNAs: Proverbial Genomic “Junk” or Key Epigenetic Regulators During Cardiac Fibrosis in Diabetes?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
LncRNAs: Proverbial Genomic “Junk” or Key Epigenetic Regulators During Cardiac Fibrosis in Diabetes?
Published in
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saumik Biswas, Anu Alice Thomas, Subrata Chakrabarti

Abstract

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are critical regulators in a multitude of biological processes. Recent evidences demonstrate potential pathogenetic implications of lncRNAs in diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM); however, the majority of lncRNAs have not been comprehensively characterized. While the precise molecular mechanisms underlying the functions of lncRNAs remain to be deciphered in DCM, emerging data in other pathophysiological conditions suggests that lncRNAs can have versatile features such as genomic imprinting, acting as guides for certain histone-modifying complexes, serving as scaffolds for specific molecules, or acting as molecular sponges. In an effort to better understand these features of lncRNAs in the context of DCM, our review will first summarize some of the key molecular alterations that occur during fibrosis in the diabetic heart (extracellular proteins and endothelial-to-mesenchymal transitioning), followed by a review of the current knowledge on the crosstalk between lncRNAs and major epigenetic mechanisms (histone methylation, histone acetylation, DNA methylation, and microRNAs) within this fibrotic process.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Computer Science 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 30%
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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,846,333
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#2,107
of 6,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,533
of 329,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#22
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,945 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 329,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.