↓ Skip to main content

Choosing a suitable method for the identification of replication origins in microbial genomes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 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
Choosing a suitable method for the identification of replication origins in microbial genomes
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chengcheng Song, Shaocun Zhang, He Huang

Abstract

As the replication of genomic DNA is arguably the most important task performed by a cell and given that it is controlled at the initiation stage, the events that occur at the replication origin play a central role in the cell cycle. Making sense of DNA replication origins is important for improving our capacity to study cellular processes and functions in the regulation of gene expression, genome integrity in much finer detail. Thus, clearly comprehending the positions and sequences of replication origins which are fundamental to chromosome organization and duplication is the first priority of all. In view of such important roles of replication origins, tremendous work has been aimed at identifying and testing the specificity of replication origins. A number of computational tools based on various skew types have been developed to predict replication origins. Using various in silico approaches such as Ori-Finder, and databases such as DoriC, researchers have predicted the locations of replication origins sites for thousands of bacterial chromosomes and archaeal genomes. Based on the predicted results, we should choose an effective method for identifying and confirming the interactions at origins of replication. Here we describe the main existing experimental methods that aimed to determine the replication origin regions and list some of the many the practical applications of these methods.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 51 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 20%
Student > Master 46 19%
Researcher 13 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 3%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 57 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 36%
Chemistry 30 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 59 25%
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 02 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,774,112
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#17,178
of 24,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,627
of 274,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#271
of 430 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 274,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 430 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.