↓ Skip to main content

Polycomb Group Proteins

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Polycomb Group Proteins'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Polycomb Group Proteins
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Polycomb Group Proteins
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Polycomb Group Proteins
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 Polycomb Group Proteins
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 Polycomb Group Proteins
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 Polycomb Group Proteins
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Polycomb Group Proteins
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Polycomb Group Proteins
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Polycomb Group Proteins
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Polycomb Group Proteins
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Polycomb Group Proteins
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 The Dynamics of Polycomb Complexes.
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Polycomb Group Proteins
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Analysis of Endogenous Protein Interactions of Polycomb Group of Proteins in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells.
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 Polycomb Group Proteins
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 An Automatic Segmentation Method Combining an Active Contour Model and a Classification Technique for Detecting Polycomb-group Proteinsin High-Throughput Microscopy Images.
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 Polycomb Group Proteins
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Polycomb Group Proteins
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 Polycomb Group Proteins
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Polycomb Group Proteins
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 Polycomb Group Proteins
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Polycomb Group Proteins
  24. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 23 A Rapid TALEN Assembly Protocol.
  25. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 24 Polycomb Group Proteins
  26. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 25 Polycomb Group Proteins
  27. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 26 Polycomb Group Proteins
  28. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 27 Polycomb Group Proteins
  29. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 28 Erratum to: Chromatin Preparation and Chromatin Immuno-precipitation from Drosophila Embryos
Attention for Chapter 2: Polycomb Group Proteins
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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.
Chapter title
Polycomb Group Proteins
Chapter number 2
Book title
Polycomb Group Proteins
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-6380-5_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-6378-2, 978-1-4939-6380-5
Authors

Wiehle, Laura, Breiling, Achim, Laura Wiehle, Achim Breiling

Editors

Chiara Lanzuolo, Beatrice Bodega

Abstract

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) is a valuable method to investigate protein-DNA interactions in vivo. Since its discovery it has been indispensable to identify binding sites and patterns of a variety of DNA-interacting proteins, such as transcription factors and regulators, modified histones, and epigenetic modifiers. The Polycomb repressors were the first proteins that have been mapped using this technique, which provided the mechanistic basis for the understanding of their biological function. Cross-linked (XChIP) or native (NChIP) chromatin from tissues or cultured cells is fragmented and the protein of interest is immunoprecipitated using a specific antibody. The co-precipitated DNA is then purified and subjected to analysis by region-specific PCR, DNA microarray (ChIP-on-chip), or next-generation sequencing (ChIP-seq). The assay can therefore produce information about the localization of the analyzed protein at specific candidate loci or throughout the entire genome. In this chapter, we provide a detailed protocol of the basic standard ChIP assay and some remarks about variations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 28%
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Unknown 5 20%
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,924
of 13,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,591
of 393,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#845
of 1,471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,132 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 393,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.