↓ Skip to main content

RNAi and Plant Gene Function Analysis

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Caveat of RNAi in plants: the off-target effect.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Caveat of RNAi in plants: the off-target effect.
Chapter number 2
Book title
RNAi and Plant Gene Function Analysis
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-123-9_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-122-2, 978-1-61779-123-9
Authors

Senthil-Kumar M, Mysore KS, Muthappa Senthil-Kumar, Kirankumar S. Mysore, Senthil-Kumar, Muthappa, Mysore, Kirankumar S.

Abstract

RNA interference (RNAi), mediated by short interfering RNAs (siRNAs), is one of the widely used functional genomics method for suppressing the gene expression in plants. Initially, gene silencing by RNAi mechanism was believed to be specific requiring sequence homology between siRNA and target mRNA. However, several recent reports have showed that non-specific effects often referred as off-target gene silencing can occur during RNAi. This unintended gene silencing can lead to false conclusions in RNAi experiments that are aimed to study the functional role of a particular target gene in plants. This especially is a major problem in large-scale RNAi-based screens aiming for gene discovery. Hence, understanding the off-target effects is crucial for minimizing such effects to better conclude gene function analyzed by RNAi. We discuss here potential problems of off-target gene silencing and focus on possibilities that favor this effect during post-transcriptional gene silencing. Suggestions to overcome the off-target effects during RNAi studies are also presented. We believe that information available in present-day plant science literature about specificity of siRNA actions is inadequate. In-depth systematic studies to understand their molecular basis are necessary to enable improved design of more specific RNAi vectors. In the meantime, gene function and phenotype results from present-day RNAi studies need to be interpreted with caution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 3%
Malaysia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 24%
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Professor 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Engineering 1 1%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,519,855
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#4,387
of 14,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,805
of 117,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 117,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.