↓ Skip to main content

The fundamental tradeoff in genomes and proteomes of prokaryotes established by the genetic code, codon entropy, and physics of nucleic acids and proteins

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
The fundamental tradeoff in genomes and proteomes of prokaryotes established by the genetic code, codon entropy, and physics of nucleic acids and proteins
Published in
Biology Direct, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13062-014-0029-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Goncearenco, Igor N Berezovsky

Abstract

BackgroundMutations in nucleotide sequences provide a foundation for genetic variability, and selection is the driving force of the evolution and molecular adaptation. Despite considerable progress in the understanding of selective forces and their compositional determinants, the very nature of underlying mutational biases remains unclear.ResultsWe explore here a fundamental tradeoff, which analytically describes mutual adjustment of the nucleotide and amino acid compositions and its possible effect on the mutational biases. The tradeoff is determined by the interplay between the genetic code, optimization of the codon entropy, and demands on the structure and stability of nucleic acids and proteins.ConclusionThe tradeoff is the unifying property of all prokaryotes regardless of the differences in their phylogenies, life styles, and extreme environments. It underlies mutational biases characteristic for genomes with different nucleotide and amino acid compositions, providing foundation for evolution and adaptation.ReviewersThis article was reviewed by Eugene Koonin, Michael Gromiha, and Alexander Schleiffer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Portugal 1 4%
Unknown 23 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 31%
Unspecified 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 3 12%

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 27 September 2015.
All research outputs
#2,353,375
of 6,409,956 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#206
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,340
of 193,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,409,956 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 61st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 193,889 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.