↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

How Communication Between Nucleosomes Enables Spreading and Epigenetic Memory of Histone Modifications

Overview of attention for article published in BioEssays, October 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
How Communication Between Nucleosomes Enables Spreading and Epigenetic Memory of Histone Modifications
Published in
BioEssays, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/bies.201700053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabian Erdel

Abstract

Nucleosomes "talk" to each other about their modification state to form extended domains of modified histones independently of the underlying DNA sequence. At the same time, DNA elements promote modification of nucleosomes in their vicinity. How do these site-specific and histone-based activities act together to regulate spreading of histone modifications along the genome? How do they enable epigenetic memory to preserve cell identity? Many models for the dynamics of repressive histone modifications emphasize the role of strong positive feedback loops, which reinforce histone modifications by recruiting histone modifiers to preexisting modifications. Recent experiments question that repressive histone modifications are self-sustained independently of their genomic context, thereby indicating that histone-based feedback is relatively weak. In the present review, current models for the dynamics of histone modifications are compared and it is suggested that limitation of histone-based feedback is key to intrinsic confinement of spreading and coexistence of short- and long-term memory at different genomic loci.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 32 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,189,218
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#527
of 2,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,566
of 329,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#16
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 329,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 68% of its contemporaries.