↓ 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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 22%
Physics and Astronomy 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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
#2,112,679
of 17,438,794 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#394
of 2,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,133
of 288,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,438,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 288,580 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.