↓ Skip to main content

The Long and Short Non-coding RNAs in Cancer Biology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 1: The Long and Short Non-coding RNAs in Cancer Biology
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The Long and Short Non-coding RNAs in Cancer Biology
Chapter number 1
Book title
The Long and Short Non-coding RNAs in Cancer Biology
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-1498-7_1
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-81-101496-3, 978-9-81-101498-7
Authors

Chen, Xueman, Fan, Siting, Song, Erwei, Xueman Chen, Siting Fan, Erwei Song

Editors

Erwei Song

Abstract

The world of noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) has gained widespread attention in recent years due to their novel and crucial potency of biological regulation. Noncoding RNAs play essential regulatory roles in a broad range of developmental processes and diseases, notably human cancers. Regulatory ncRNAs represent multiple levels of structurally and functionally distinct RNAs, including the best-known microRNAs (miRNAs), the complicated long ncRNAs (lncRNAs), and the newly identified circular RNAs (circRNAs). However, the mechanisms by which they act remain elusive. In this chapter, we will review the current knowledge of the ncRNA field, discussing the genomic context, biological functions, and mechanisms of action of miRNAs, lncRNAs, and circRNAs. We also highlight the implications of the biogenesis and gene expression dysregulation of different ncRNA subtypes in the initiation and development of human malignancies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 38%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
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 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,315
of 4,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,837
of 355,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#60
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 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 4,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 355,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.