↓ Skip to main content

Deadenylation of mRNA by the CCR4–NOT complex in Drosophila: molecular and developmental aspects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Deadenylation of mRNA by the CCR4–NOT complex in Drosophila: molecular and developmental aspects
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Temme, Martine Simonelig, Elmar Wahle

Abstract

Controlled shortening of the poly(A) tail of mRNAs is the first step in eukaryotic mRNA decay and can also be used for translational inactivation of mRNAs. The CCR4-NOT complex is the most important among a small number of deadenylases, enzymes catalyzing poly(A) tail shortening. Rates of poly(A) shortening differ between mRNAs as the CCR4-NOT complex is recruited to specific mRNAs by means of either sequence-specific RNA binding proteins or miRNAs. This review summarizes our current knowledge concerning the subunit composition and deadenylation activity of the Drosophila CCR4-NOT complex and the mechanisms by which the complex is recruited to particular mRNAs. We discuss genetic data implicating the complex in the regulation of specific mRNAs, in particular in the context of development.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 49 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 28 24%
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 26 May 2014.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,397
of 12,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,808
of 228,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#98
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 228,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.