↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of Xist RNA-independent initiation of mouse imprinted X-chromosome inactivation

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
Title
Evidence of Xist RNA-independent initiation of mouse imprinted X-chromosome inactivation
Published in
Nature, July 2009
DOI 10.1038/nature08161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sundeep Kalantry, Sonya Purushothaman, Randall Bryant Bowen, Joshua Starmer, Terry Magnuson

Abstract

XX female mammals undergo transcriptional silencing of most genes on one of their two X chromosomes to equalize X-linked gene dosage with XY males in a process referred to as X-chromosome inactivation (XCI). XCI is an example of epigenetic regulation. Once enacted in individual cells of the early female embryo, XCI is stably transmitted such that most descendant cells maintain silencing of that X chromosome. In eutherian mammals, XCI is thought to be triggered by the expression of the non-coding Xist RNA from the future inactive X chromosome (Xi); Xist RNA in turn is proposed to recruit protein complexes that bring about heterochromatinization of the Xi. Here we test whether imprinted XCI, which results in preferential inactivation of the paternal X chromosome (Xp), occurs in mouse embryos inheriting an Xp lacking Xist. We find that silencing of Xp-linked genes can initiate in the absence of paternal Xist; Xist is, however, required to stabilize silencing along the Xp. Xp-linked gene silencing associated with mouse imprinted XCI, therefore, can initiate in the embryo independently of Xist RNA.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Unknown 185 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 26%
Student > Master 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Professor 12 6%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 127 66%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Chemistry 2 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 22 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,943,417
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#64,029
of 90,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,162
of 109,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#392
of 504 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 90,828 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 99.3. 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 109,939 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 504 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.