↓ Skip to main content

Autophagy supports genomic stability by degrading retrotransposon RNA

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users
weibo
10 weibo users

Citations

dimensions_citation
124 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
Autophagy supports genomic stability by degrading retrotransposon RNA
Published in
Nature Communications, November 2014
DOI 10.1038/ncomms6276
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huishan Guo, Maneka Chitiprolu, David Gagnon, Lingrui Meng, Carol Perez-Iratxeta, Diane Lagace, Derrick Gibbings

Abstract

Many cytoplasmic substrates degraded by autophagy have been identified; however, the impact of RNA degradation by autophagy remains uncertain. Retrotransposons comprise 40% of the human genome and are a major source of genetic variation among species, individuals and cells. Retrotransposons replicate via a copy-paste mechanism involving a cytoplasmic RNA intermediate. Here we report that autophagy degrades retrotransposon RNA from both long and short interspersed elements, preventing new retrotransposon insertions into the genome. Retrotransposon RNA localizes to RNA granules, whose selective degradation is facilitated by the autophagy receptors NDP52 and p62. Accordingly, NDP52 and p62 control retrotransposon insertion in the genome. Mice lacking a copy of Atg6/Beclin1, a gene critical for autophagy, also accumulate both retrotransposon RNA and genomic insertions. Thus, autophagy physiologically buffers genetic variegation by degrading retrotransposon RNA. This may contribute to the increased tumorigenesis occuring when autophagy is inhibited and suggest a role for autophagy in tempering evolutionary change.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 189 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 24%
Researcher 35 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Master 17 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 6%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 6%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 40 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,632,797
of 24,690,130 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#22,489
of 53,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,960
of 267,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#282
of 768 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,690,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 267,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 768 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 63% of its contemporaries.