↓ Skip to main content

The Evolutionary Relationship between Alternative Splicing and Gene Duplication

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
The Evolutionary Relationship between Alternative Splicing and Gene Duplication
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis P Iñiguez, Georgina Hernández

Abstract

The protein diversity that exists today has resulted from various evolutionary processes. It is well known that gene duplication (GD) along with the accumulation of mutations are responsible, among other factors, for an increase in the number of different proteins. The gene structure in eukaryotes requires the removal of non-coding sequences, introns, to produce mature mRNAs. This process, known as cis-splicing, referred to here as splicing, is regulated by several factors which can lead to numerous splicing arrangements, commonly designated as alternative splicing (AS). AS, producing several transcripts isoforms form a single gene, also increases the protein diversity. However, the evolution and manner for increasing protein variation differs between AS and GD. An important question is how are patterns of AS affected after a GD event. Here, we review the current knowledge of AS and GD, focusing on their evolutionary relationship. These two processes are now considered the main contributors to the increasing protein diversity and therefore their relationship is a relevant, yet understudied, area of evolutionary study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 31%
Engineering 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 21 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,765,054
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,659
of 11,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,276
of 428,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,974 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 428,391 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 71% of its contemporaries.