1,372
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Paper

The top 100 most-cited papers in long non-coding RNAs: a bibliometric study

, , , , , & show all
Pages 40-54 | Received 17 Nov 2019, Accepted 21 Oct 2020, Published online: 14 Dec 2020

ABSTRACT

Up to 90% of the human genome is transcribed into Long-noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) that longer than 200 nucleotides but do not code for proteins. LncRNAs play a vital role in a broad range of biological process, it’s dysregulations and mutations are linked to the development and progression of various complex human diseases. Given the dramatic changes and growing scientific outputs in lncRNAs field, using a quantitative measurement to analyze and characterize the existing studies has become imperative.Bibliometric analysis is a widely used tool to assess the academic influence of a publication or a country in a specific field. However, a bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited papers in lncRNAs area has not been conducted. Thus, we executed a bibliometric study to identify the authors, journals, countries and institutions that contributed most to the top 100 lncRNAs list, characterize the key words and focus of top 100 most-cited papers, and detect the factors related to their successful citation. This study provides a comprehensive list of the most influential papers on lncRNAs research and demonstrates the important advances in this field, which might be benefit to researchers in their paper publication and scientific cooperation.

1. Introduction

Long-noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) had been defined as non-protein-coding transcribed RNA molecules with more than 200 nucleotides in lengthCitation1,Citation2 and account for 90% of the RNAs transcribed by the human genome.Citation3 In 1989, the first mammalian lncRNA H19 was discovered.Citation4 Subsequently, the essential role of the lncRNA Xist in X chromosome inactivation was identified.Citation5,Citation6 Over the last decade, lncRNAs have aroused great attention from investigators worldwide due to their regulatory latent capacity in a diversity of physiological and pathological procedures.Citation7 Advances in deep sequencing technology and computational prediction have enabled the extensive identification of a large number of lncRNAs. A plenty of evidence indicated that lncRNAs play a key role in a cluster of biological process,Citation8 including chromatin remodeling or modification,Citation9,Citation10 epigenetic regulation,Citation11 dosage compensation,Citation12 genomic imprinting,Citation13 allosteric regulation of proteins,Citation14 methylation,Citation15 cell development, and differentiation,Citation12 cell cycle control,Citation16 organ or tissue development,Citation17 and metabolic processes.Citation18 However, the mechanisms of action of these molecules remain incompletely understood.Citation19 Some lncRNAs recruit transcriptional factors to their DNA targets, some act as baits to separate RNA conjugated proteins or miRNAs, and some interact with DNAs or other RNAs directly.Citation20,Citation21

Dysregulations and mutations of lncRNAs are associated with the development and progression of diverse human diseases,Citation22,Citation23 such as autism spectrum disorderCitation24 and abdominal aortic aneurysm.Citation25 LncRNAs also act as drivers joining in the process of tumor suppressive and oncogenic functions,Citation26,Citation27 and their differential expression is a symbolic feature in numerous cancer types,Citation28 such as lung cancer,Citation29 breast cancer,Citation30 liver cancer,Citation31 prostate cancer,Citation26 and colon cancer.Citation32

Considering growing outputs and dramatic changes in lncRNAs research, using a quantitative method to assess and analyze the available studies has become imperative.Citation33 Bibliometric analysis, which was first introduced by Paul Otlet in 1934,Citation34 is a popular tool to evaluate the academic influence of a publication or a country in a specific field. Bibliometric studies have been widely utilized to explore developing trends in several medical research, such as microRNAs,Citation33 DNA repair,Citation35 radiation-responsive genes,Citation36 double helices,Citation37 epigenetics,Citation38 and cancer.Citation39 Bibliometrics studies related to lncRNAs have also been published. For example, Chen X focused on lncRNAs and chemotherapeutic resistance,Citation40 Zhai X mapped the expanding trend of global lncRNAs research from 1975 to 2017,Citation41 Miao Y performed bibliometric analysis of lncRNAs trends over a short period (2007–2016),Citation42 and Xing YH concentrated on Chinese progress in lncRNAs field.Citation7

Nevertheless, a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited papers in lncRNAs research has not been conducted. Thus, we executed a bibliometric study to identify and characterize the top 100 most-cited papers on lncRNAs and detect the factors related to their successful citation, which might be benefit to researchers in their paper publication and scientific cooperation.

2. Methods

Ethical approval from the institutional review board was not required because our study was a bibliometric analysis that did not involve human subjects.

2.1 Search strategy

The papers were searched from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) of Web of Science (WOS), which contains over 5,700 major journals across 164 scientific disciplines.Citation43 We performed our literature search on August 15, 2019 to avoid changes in the online activity of papers. The search keywords were referred to some academic papersCitation41,Citation42 and MESH terms from PubMed: (TI = (“lncRNA*” OR “lnc RNA*” OR “long ncRNA*” OR “long noncoding RNA*” OR “long non coding RNA*” OR “long non translated RNA*” OR “long non protein coding RNA*” OR “linc RNA* ”OR “lincRNA*”)) and Language = English, and publishing year was set from 1998 to 2018.

2.2 Inclusion criteria

The primary search results were sorted based on the citation counts in descending order. Then, the papers cited no less than 200 times were downloaded for further analysis; shows the selection process. First, in terms of document types, only peer-reviewed articles, and reviews were included; conference abstracts, conference presentations, and book chapters were excluded. Second, we read titles and abstracts to remove studies that were unrelated to lncRNAs research. Finally, the 100 most-cited papers were exported to Microsoft Excel 2016 to create tables and figures. To enhance our search sensitivity, data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers (Mengsi Peng and Juan Wang evaluated), and a third researcher (XueQiang Wang) was consulted to deal with discrepancies.

Figure 1. Data extraction process

Figure 1. Data extraction process

2.3 Data selection

The following information was extracted from the top-cited papers: publication year, citation count, citation per year (total citations/the number of years since publication), author, journal, country or region (based on the correspondent author’s address), institution, documental type, research field, and key words. The journal impact factor 2018 (IF 2018) and five-year IF were obtained from the Journal Citation Report (2018 edition). Moreover, the latest statistics on gross domestic product (GDP) was obtained from the Word Bank.Citation41

An inherent limitation of this study is that recent important papers may not have been captured because of insufficient time to accumulate citations. To address this issue, we performed the same search within a narrower time range (2017–2018) to select the top 20 most-cited papers.

2.4 SPSS

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0. P value<.05 was the criterion for statistically significant. Descriptive statistics were quantified as average or counts(percentages) of parameters. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was employed to test the correlations between IF(2018)and paper counts, IF(2018)and citation counts, GDP and paper counts, GDP and citation counts, as well as correlations between annual citations and total citations. The Mann–Whitney test was used to exam whether there was any significant difference in citation counts between articles and reviews. The differences in some quantitative indicators (the total citations, citations per year, citations 2018, citations per article, citations per review and IF 2018) before and after 2011 were also analyzed by Mann–Whitney test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test qualitative indicators, including the distribution differences in paper count among country, type of paper, open access, and highly cited before and after 2011.

3. Result

3.1 Citation

lists the top 100 most-cited papers in lncRNAs research. The median number of citations was 414.5 with a range of 249–2,828 (mean: 597.33 ± 489.37). For annual citations, the median number was 57.47 (mean: 76.41 ± 51.28) with a range of 27.3–282.8. When comparing the ranking of annual citations to that of total citations, the change in position ranged from −30 to +42 with a mean absolute rank change of 10.08 ± 9. Papers with higher annual citations tended to have more total citations, and the correlation between these factors was significantly strong (r = 0.927, P = .000).

Table 1. The 100 most-cited papers in long non-coding RNAs field

3.2 Year

The top 100 most-cited papers were published between 2007 and 2016. The vast majority of these papers (n = 30) was published in 2013 and 2011was the second peak with 21 papers. During this period, the number of articles was usually higher than the number of reviews, except for the years 2009 and 2016 (). From 2009 to 2015, the total citations of papers were on the decline, as well as the total citations of articles and reviews ().

Figure 2. Number of publications and citations among different types of articles according to publication year. (a) Number of annual publications on lncRNAs research from 2007 to 2016. (b) Number of annual citations on lncRNAs research from 2007 to 2016

Figure 2. Number of publications and citations among different types of articles according to publication year. (a) Number of annual publications on lncRNAs research from 2007 to 2016. (b) Number of annual citations on lncRNAs research from 2007 to 2016

We executed a two-time point analysis to compare papers before and after 2011 (). Publications after 2011 approximately twice that of publications before 2011. However, the total number of citations per paper before 2011 was significantly higher than that after 2011 (P < .001), and the citation difference between these two periods was obvious in original articles (P < .001). The USA and China contributed more papers after 2011 than before this year, but the effect of time on the country constituent ratio was not significant (P = .096). Among the top 100 papers related to lncRNAs, 82% were open access and 92% were highly cited.

Table 2. Two-time point analyses comparing journals’ top-cited articles before and after 2011

3.3 Country and institution

The 100 top-cited papers originated from 15 countries; the USA and China were the most productive in this regard (). Nearly half of the papers published (n = 49) were from the USA, and around one-quarter (n = 24) was from China. Australia ranked third with 6 papers, followed by England and Germany, each contributing 4 papers to the list. Additionally, GDP and number of papers were positively correlated (r = 0.966, P < .001). shows the list of institutions, all the top three most-prolific institutions were rooted in the USA.

Figure 3. Countries and institutions of the top 100 most-cited papers. (a) Countries of region of the top 100 list. (b) Institutions with at least four papers in the top 100 most-cited papers

Figure 3. Countries and institutions of the top 100 most-cited papers. (a) Countries of region of the top 100 list. (b) Institutions with at least four papers in the top 100 most-cited papers

3.4 Journal

Exactly 47 academic journals contributed to the 100 top-cited papers, which were predominantly published in Cell (n = 12) and followed by Nature (n = 9), Nucleic Acids Research (n = 7), Molecular Cell (n = 6), and Science (n = 6). presents journals with at least three publications.

Table 3. Journals contributed ≥3 papers in the top 100 most cited list

The IF for journals within the top 100 cited papers ranged from 2.929 to 43.704. (). Within the top 100 list, paper counts (r = 0.519, P < .001) and citation (r = 0.363, P < .001) counts were significantly related to IF.

Figure 4. Impact factor of the top 100 most-cited papers

Figure 4. Impact factor of the top 100 most-cited papers

3.5 Author

The top 100 papers on lncRNAs research were drafted by 24 authors. illustrates the most productive writers, i.e., those who authored at least three papers. Chang HY published the greatest number of papers (n = 11), and Mattick JS was the next biggest contributors owned 8 papers. Rinn JL and Chinnaiyan AM were tied for the third place with six papers.

Table 4. Authors with at least three papers in the top 100 most-cited list

3.6 Study field

In , the top 100 papers in lncRNAs were classified into various study fields based on WOS categories. The majority of the papers (n = 42) were categorized into “Biochemistry Molecular Biology,” and 38 papers were classified into “Cell Biology.” Considerable studies were also conducted in other fields, such as “Genetics Heredity,” “Oncology,” and “Science Technology Other Topics.”

Table 5. Research fields of the top 100 most-cited list

3.7 Keyword

The top 100 papers covered a wide range of keywords (). The terms “Gene-Expression,” “Expression,” “Chromatin,” “Gene,” and “Reveals” were the five most frequently used key words in the documents analyzed.

Table 6. Key words with at least five papers in the top 100 most-cited list

3.8 Type of document

In terms of the type of document, original articles comprised 68% of the most-cited papers, and the remaining 34% were reviews. Total citations (P = .016), annual citations (P = .016), and citation 2018 (P = .001) significantly differed among the different document types.

4. Discussion

In this study, we conducted bibliometric analysis to identify the top 100 papers with highest citations in the field of lncRNAs research over the past two decades. We now summarize several features of these papers to gain insights into the history and prospects of this specialty.

4.1 Characteristics of the top 100 papers

4.1.1 Citations

The citation count, a reliable objective indicator of the quality and impact of a paper, varies across different subspecialties and depends on the size of the scientific community. Papers with high numbers of citations are usually called “citation classic;” hence, new researchers in a particular field could read these papers first before conducting further studies.Citation41 The number of citations of the top 100 papers in our study on lncRNAs varied from 249 to 2,828, which is higher than that of other subjects.Citation44–46 This finding indicates that lncRNAs research is a major concern in the medical and health fields. In comparison with a bibliometric study on lncRNAs published in 2018, in which the top 100 papers were cited 36,033 times, the total number of citations of the top 100 papers in our research (59,733 times) was much higher.Citation41

To prevent bias wherein older papers are likely to receive more citations due to their longer citable period,Citation47 we calculated annual citations to evaluate the relative impact of a paper. Papers with a large number of total citations but low number of annual citations are historically important in a certain period. By contrast, papers with high numbers of total and annual citations may be related to current studies and should be regarded as a true medical classics or landmarks in lncRNAs research. Papers published in the last 2 years have not accumulated enough citations to be included in the top 100 list. Hence, we tabulated the top 20 most-cited papers from 2017 to 2018 to show the “rising stars” in the lncRNAs field ().

Table 7. The top 20 most-cited papers on long non-coding RNAs from 2017 to 2018

In comparison with annual citations, the citations in 2018 of most papers are much higher, which reflects that the top 100 papers gained sustained attention from scientists and may have potential academic importance in the future. The paper ranked first was published in Nature in 2010 and written by Gupta, RA, et al., reported that lncRNAs enhances the regulation of cancer expressionCitation10 and gained the highest number of annual citations. Interestingly, this paper also gained the most number of citations in bibliometric research published in 2018, with 1,281 total citations and 227.62 annual citations, but its overall number of citations in our study was twice more that in 2018 (2,828 times).Citation41

4.1.2 Year

The top 100 papers were published from 2007 to 2016, although our search spanned the period from 1998 to 2018. Prior to 2007, only one paper entitled “Clusters of internally primed transcripts reveal novel long-noncoding RNAs” was searched. This paper was published by the journal PLOS GENETICS and gained 133 citations. Exactly 4,737 papers on lncRNAs were published from 2017 to 2018, but they were not cited enough to be included in the list of top 100 papers.

Previous bibliometric study reported that lncRNAs have been continuously studied since 2006 and would reach the inflection point of publication growth rate in 2021.Citation41 The results of our study are consistent with those of previous research. The paper with the earliest publication in the top 100 list was published in 2007, and publication counts increased with fluctuations from 2007 to 2016. The peak citations of scientific papers are usually obtained approximately 10 years after publication.Citation48 Hence, the papers included in our study could be expected to attract more attention from researchers in following years.

In our study, the most influential papers on lncRNAs were published in 2011–2014, which is a little different from a former study that the most boom years was 2009–2012.Citation42 A possible explanation for this difference is that our study was conducted 2 years after this previous work, which allowed some papers more time to gather citations.

Two-time point analyses demonstrated that more papers were published but fewer citations were made per paper after 2011 than before 2011. This result is in line with the bibliometric analysis results on lncRNAs research from 2007 to 2016, in which the publication year was divided into a slowly increasing phase (2007–2011) and a sharply growing phase (2012–2016).Citation42 The reason why papers published before 2011 were more frequently cited than those after 2011 might because the former have a longer citation period and academic importance in the lncRNAs field.

4.1.3 Country and institution

In terms of countries, the USA and China were the two largest contributors (73% of all publications) to the top 100 list. More papers were published in these countries after 2011 than before 2011; indeed, publications from China increased by fivefold over this time (). The USA dominated the top 100 list and can be regarded as the leading nation in lncRNAs research.Citation42 The dominance of this country in other clinical disciplines, such as miRNAs,Citation33 DNA repair,Citation35 and cancer,Citation39 has been noted, thus reflecting the enormous influence of the USA in the medical field.Citation44 China presented a remarkable increase in both amount and quality of publications in the lncRNAs field. In one bibliometric study, China was the most productive country with 2,462 papers published (63.47%);Citation41 in another bibliometric study, increasing numbers of papers from China were published in top academic journals with an IF higher than 10.Citation7

Many scientists speculate that scientific activities are tightly connected to the social and economic issues of a country.Citation35,Citation49,Citation50 Countries with high GDP may allot substantial investments in scientific investigation and foster a large sum of senior researchers.Citation49,Citation51,Citation52 Similarly, the publication count is strongly related to a nation’s GDP. However, financial support partly explains the strong dominance of the USA in lncRNAs research. Furthermore, USA authors are more likely to cite local papers than foreign ones, and their papers are easier to publish in American journals than foreign papers.Citation43

Although the institution rankings usually resemble country rankings, some important distinctions can be found in our study. reports that 13 institutions owned no less than 4 papers, including 10 from the USA and 2 from China. This result is quite different from a previous bibliometric study on lncRNAs (including all papers), in which 9 of the top 10 most prolific institutions were from China.Citation41,Citation42 Different types of bibliometric research depict the institutions’ advantages in different aspects. Scholars could find productive or influential institutions in the lncRNAs area for academic cooperation according to their needs.

4.1.4 Journal

Journals with high IFs, such as Cell, Nature, and Science, published the majority of the top-cited papers. This result is quite different from that of a previous bibliometric study on lncRNAs (including all papers), in which only 18.86% of all publications appeared in journals with an IF higher than 3.000.Citation42 The IF value of a journal may be an effective predictor of citations. Our study supports the theory that paper counts and citation counts are positively related to the IF of the journals. In previous bibliometric studies, the journal Oncotarget published the largest number of papers in lncRNAs research.Citation41,Citation42 However, this journal contributed only one paper to the list of top 100 papers.

Moreover, the most-cited lncRNAs papers are nearly almost published in journals from USA and England. Considering that these prestigious journals have a higher rank and wider influence in their area to attract audience and citations, successful scientists may prefer to submit their high-quality works to these journals, which, in turn, maintains the latter’s high IF.Citation53,Citation54 For beginners in the lncRNAs field, choosing to read papers in these journals would provide them with a quick track to understand the fundamentals and follow developing trends.Citation55

4.1.5 Author

In comparison with a bibliometric study that included all lncRNAs papers, nearly none of the most prolific authors in our study were included in their most productive list.Citation42 Hence, authors should strive to conduct quality of research while working on increasing their number of works. Previous study found lncRNAs papers written by Gupta RA, Derrien T, Tsai MC, and Guttman M had been cited mostly by 2017,Citation41,Citation42 these authors also appear in our study whose paper citations ranked top 10. Gupta, who owned the top-cited paper in the lncRNAs field, was the most influential author in 2017.Citation41 He remained the top author in our study, and citations of his paper increased from 1,821 to 2,828 within 2 years.

4.1.6 Study hotpots

The majority of included papers in our study fall into the fields of “Biochemistry Molecular Biology” and “Cell Biology,” thus stressing the critical role of lncRNAs in cancer transition and cell proliferation. We summarized the keywords of the top 100 papers and found “Gene-Expression,” “Expression,” “Chromatin,” and “Gene” to be the most frequently used keywords. This finding is similar to the results of a bibliometric analysis by Miao Y et al. in which “dosage compensation,” “in vivo,” “genome-wide association,” and “xist RNA” were the most common keywords.Citation42

Previous lncRNAs bibliometrics studies found that “TNM stage,” “epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT),” and “cell apoptosis” were the latest research areas up to 2017.Citation41 Moreover, interest in lncRNA-related studies gradually shifted from “characteristics” to “application” during 2013–2017.Citation41 Our study also supports this development trend because the function, human atlas and human disease may be promising future hotpots in the lncRNAs field (). Understanding the main areas and hotpots of lncRNAs papers is critical for editorial boards and scientific organizations when choosing and judging future research work; such knowledge may also help young researchers publish articles more effectively.Citation56

4.1.7 Type of document

In our initial search, a total of 7,754 papers on lncRNAs were identified from 1998 to 2018, including 6,815 (87.89%) papers published as articles and 939 (12.11%) papers classified as reviews. In comparison with the initial search, the proportion of reviews (34%) is higher in our list of the top 100 most-cited papers. Moreover, reviews received significantly higher total and annual numbers of citations than articles. Hence, although original articles account for a large part of the citation classics, reviews have also attracted considerable attention among researchers.

4.2 Citation bias

Notwithstanding that citation count offers a valuable quantitative evaluation to determine academic importance, inherent methodologic limitations of the bibliometric study must be considered.Citation57

First, the citation count for an article increases over time. Thus, earlier publications are potentially cited more frequently, regardless of their actual impact, whereas the importance of recent works may be underestimated due to the insufficient time to accumulate citation rates.Citation43,Citation58

Second, specific landmark publications are rarely cited due to the issue of “obliteration by incorporation.” This phenomenon occurs when the information provided by classics becomes part of the current body of knowledge in the field and embedded in the daily practice of clinicians.Citation59–61

Another limitation is “orientated-citing bias,” which involves various types of conscious or unconscious incomplete citation biases. For instance, a researcher may prefer to cite works written by himself, a powerful person, colleagues, or friends, or select references from certain journals in which he prepared to submit work or journals with high IF; he may also avoid citing contradictory studies or competitors’ papers.Citation44,Citation56,Citation61

Finally, other factors, such as open access, language preference, and the inherent design of the Science Citation Index,Citation62 may also affect the citation count.

4.3 Strengths and limitations

A strength of our research is that the inherent time bias of bibliometrics was fully considered. We conducted a two-time analyze before and after 2011 and summarized the top 20 most-frequently cited papers from 2017 to 2018. Then, we listed the authors (e.g., first author, corresponding author), journal (e.g., originating country, IF, JCR category, and JCR partition), and most common keywords in detail. Finally, we performed statistical analyses to determine the underlying factors that may be related to citation counts.

Our study has several limitations. First, the search strategy may have missed some papers without the search words in their titles. Second, the language of the papers was restricted to English; thus, studies written in other languages may have been omitted. Third, only the WOS was searched to collect data; other databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar were not analyzed.

5. Conclusion

Our study identified papers responsible for the most significant developments in lncRNAs research. The number of citations in the top 100 most-cited papers varied from 249 to 2,828, and the publication years spanned from 2007 to 2016, with the year 2013 accounting for the most number of papers published. IF, GDP, and document type were strongly related to the citation count. The applications of lncRNAs in function, human atlas, and human disease may be future research hotpots.

Although the citation count does not accurately provide an evaluation of study quality, the top 100 most-cited papers offer investigators interesting insights into how lncRNAs research has evolved rapidly over the past decades, and help them choose targeted scientific issues to fill research gaps. Factors related to the citation count suggested researchers publishing researches in journals with high IF to gain higher influence, choosing countries with high GDP to cooperate or further education to receive more support. Furthermore, it could serve as a guide in policy making, R&D planning, and funding decision.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant (number 81871844); Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation of China under Grant (number 161092); the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning under Grant (number 201840346); the Shanghai Key Lab of Human Performance (Shanghai University of Sport) under Grant (number 11DZ2261100); Shuguang Program supported by Shanghai Education Development Foundation and Shanghai Municipal Education Commission under Grant (number 18SG48).

References

  • Perkel JM. Visiting “noncodarnia”. Biotechniques. 2013;54:301, 303–304. PMID:23750541. doi:10.2144/000114037.
  • Morris KV, Mattick JS. The rise of regulatory RNA. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:423–437. PMID:24776770. doi:10.1038/nrg3722.
  • Djebali S, Davis CA, Merkel A, Dobin A, Lassmann T, Mortazavi A, Tanzer A, Lagarde J, Lin W, Schlesinger F, et al. Landscape of transcription in human cells. Nature. 2012;489(7414):101–108. PMID:22955620. doi:10.1038/nature11233.
  • Groux H, Huet S, Aubrit F, Tran HC, Boumsell L, Bernard A. A 19-kDa human erythrocyte molecule H19 is involved in rosettes, present on nucleated cells, and required for T cell activation. Comparison of the roles of H19 and LFA-3 molecules in T cell activation. J Immunol. 1989;142:3013–3020. PMID:2468708.
  • Brown CJ, Ballabio A, Rupert JL, Lafreniere RG, Grompe M, Tonlorenzi R, Willard HF. A gene from the region of the human X inactivation centre is expressed exclusively from the inactive X chromosome. Nature. 1991;349(6304):38–44. PMID:1985261. doi:10.1038/349038a0.
  • Briggs SF, Reijo Pera RA. X chromosome inactivation: recent advances and a look forward. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2014;28:78–82. PMID:25461454. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2014.09.010.
  • Xing YH, Bai Z, Liu CX, Hu SB, Ruan M, Chen LL. Research progress of long noncoding RNA in China. IUBMB Life. 2016;68:887–893. PMID:27699981. doi:10.1002/iub.1564.
  • Batista PJ, Chang HY. Long noncoding RNAs: cellular address codes in development and disease. Cell. 2013;152:1298–1307. PMID:23498938. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.012.
  • Mercer TR, Dinger ME, Mattick JS. Long non-coding RNAs: insights into functions. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:155–159. PMID:19188922. doi:10.1038/nrg2521.
  • Gupta RA, Shah N, Wang KC, Kim J, Horlings HM, Wong DJ, Tsai M-C, Hung T, Argani P, Rinn JL, et al. Long non-coding RNA HOTAIR reprograms chromatin state to promote cancer metastasis. Nature. 2010;464:1071–1076. PMID:20393566. doi:10.1038/nature08975.
  • Skuratovskaia D, Vulf M, Komar A, Kirienkova E, Litvinova L. Promising directions in atherosclerosis treatment based on epigenetic regulation using MicroRNAs and long noncoding RNAs. Biomolecules. 2019;9. PMID:31212708. doi:10.3390/biom9060226.
  • Fatica A, Bozzoni I. Long non-coding RNAs: new players in cell differentiation and development. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:7–21. PMID:24296535. doi:10.1038/nrg3606.
  • Ouyang J, Zhu X, Chen Y, Wei H, Chen Q, Chi X, Qi B, Zhang L, Zhao Y, Gao G, et al. NRAV, a long noncoding RNA, modulates antiviral responses through suppression of interferon-stimulated gene transcription. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;16(5):616–626. PMID:25525793. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2014.10.001.
  • Geisler S, Coller J. RNA in unexpected places: long non-coding RNA functions in diverse cellular contexts. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2013;14:699–712. PMID:24105322. doi:10.1038/nrm3679.
  • O’Leary VB, Ovsepian SV, Carrascosa LG, Buske F, Radulovic V, Niyazi M, Moertl S, Trau M, Atkinson M, Anastasov N, et al. PARTICLE, a triplex-forming long ncRNA, regulates locus-specific methylation in response to low-dose irradiation. Cell Rep. 2015;11(3):474–485. PMID:25900080. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.043.
  • Wapinski O, Chang HY. Long noncoding RNAs and human disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2011;21:354–361. PMID:21550244. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2011.04.001.
  • Zhao W, Luo J, Jiao S. Comprehensive characterization of cancer subtype associated long non-coding RNAs and their clinical implications. Sci Rep. 2014;4:6591. PMID:25307233. doi:10.1038/srep06591.
  • Zhao XY, Lin JD. Long noncoding RNAs: a new regulatory code in metabolic control. Trends Biochem Sci. 2015;40:586–596. PMID:26410599. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2015.08.002.
  • Wilusz JE, Sunwoo H, Spector DL. Long noncoding RNAs: functional surprises from the RNA world. Genes Dev. 2009;23:1494–1504. PMID:19571179.
  • Goff LA, Rinn JL. Linking RNA biology to lncRNAs. Genome Res. 2015;25:1456–1465. PMID:26430155. doi:10.1101/gr.191122.115.
  • Wang KC, Chang HY. Molecular mechanisms of long noncoding RNAs. Mol Cell. 2011;43:904–914. PMID:21925379. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2011.08.018.
  • Chen X, Yan C, Zhang X, You Z. Long non-coding RNAs and complex diseases: from experimental results to computational models. Brief Bioinform. 2017;18:558–576. PMID:27345524. doi:10.1093/bib/bbw060.
  • Chen X, Sun Y, Guan N, Qu J, Huang Z-A, Zhu Z-X, Li J-Q. Computational models for lncRNA function prediction and functional similarity calculation. Brief Funct Genomics. 2019;18(1):58–82. PMID:30247501. doi:10.1093/bfgp/ely031.
  • Tang J, Yu Y, Yang W. Long noncoding RNA and its contribution to autism spectrum disorders. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2017;23:645–656. PMID:28635106. doi:10.1111/cns.12710.
  • Li Y, Maegdefessel L. Non-coding RNA contribution to thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysm disease development and progression. Front Physiol. 2017;8:429. PMID:28670289. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00429.
  • Prensner JR, Chinnaiyan AM. The emergence of lncRNAs in cancer biology. Cancer Discov. 2011;1:391–407. PMID:22096659. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0209.
  • Ulitsky I, Bartel DP. lincRNAs: genomics, evolution, and mechanisms. Cell. 2013;154:26–46. PMID: 23827673. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.020.
  • Gibb EA, Brown CJ, Lam WL. The functional role of long non-coding RNA in human carcinomas. Mol Cancer. 2011;10:38. PMID:21489289. doi:10.1186/1476-4598-10-38.
  • Gutschner T, Hammerle M, Eissmann M, Hsu J, Kim Y, Hung G, Revenko A, Arun G, Stentrup M, Gross M, et al. The noncoding RNA MALAT1 is a critical regulator of the metastasis phenotype of lung cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2013;73(3):1180–1189. PMID:23243023. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2850.
  • Augoff K, McCue B, Plow EF, Sossey-Alaoui K. miR-31 and its host gene lncRNA LOC554202 are regulated by promoter hypermethylation in triple-negative breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2012;11:5. PMID:22289355. doi:10.1186/1476-4598-11-5.
  • Wang Y, He L, Du Y, Zhu P, Huang G, Luo J, Yan X, Ye B, Li C, Xia P, et al. The long noncoding RNA lncTCF7 promotes self-renewal of human liver cancer stem cells through activation of Wnt signaling. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(4):413–425. PMID:25842979. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2015.03.003.
  • Ling H, Spizzo R, Atlasi Y, Nicoloso M, Shimizu M, Redis RS, Nishida N, Gafa R, Song J, Guo Z, et al. CCAT2, a novel noncoding RNA mapping to 8q24, underlies metastatic progression and chromosomal instability in colon cancer. Genome Res. 2013;23(9):1446–1461. PMID:23796952. doi:10.1101/gr.152942.112.
  • Casey MC, Kerin MJ, Brown JA, Sweeney KJ. Evolution of a research field-a micro (RNA) example. PeerJ. 2015;3:e829. PMID:25802804. doi:10.7717/peerj.829.
  • Rousseau R. Library science: forgotten founder of bibliometrics. Nature. 2014;510:218. PMID:24919911. doi:10.1038/510218e.
  • Maisonobe M, Giglia-Mari G, Eckert D. DNA repair: a changing geography? (1964-2008). DNA Repair (Amst). 2013;12:466–471. PMID:23669398. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2013.04.002.
  • Li S, Lu X, Feng JB, Tian M, Liu QJ. Identification and validation of candidate radiation-responsive genes for human biodosimetr. Biomed Environ Sci. 2017;30:834–840. PMID:29216961. doi:10.3967/bes2017.112.
  • Gingras Y. The Revisiting “quiet debut” of the double helix: a bibliometric and methodological note on the “impact” of scientific publications. J Hist Biol. 2010;43:159–181. PMID:20503721. doi:10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2.
  • Lu K, Yu S, Sun D, Xing H, An J, Kong C, Yu M, Zhu Y. Scientometric analysis of SIRT6 studies. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:8357–8371. PMID:30457131. doi:10.12659/MSM.913644.
  • Cabral BP, da Graca Derengowski Fonseca M, Mota FB. The recent landscape of cancer research worldwide: a bibliometric and network analysis. Oncotarget. 2018;9:30474–30484. PMID:30093962. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.25730.
  • Chen X, Shi Y, Zhou K, Yu S, Cai W, Ying M. A bibliometric analysis of long non-coding RNA and chemotherapeutic resistance research. Oncotarget. 2019;10:3267–3275. PMID:31143372. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.26938.
  • Zhai X, Zhao J, Wang Y, Wei X, Li G, Yang Y, Chen Z, Bai Y, Wang Q, Chen X, et al. Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on lncRNA: a swiftly expanding trend. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:7625078. PMID:29992161. doi:10.1155/2018/7625078.
  • Miao Y, Xu SY, Chen LS, Liang GY, Pu YP, Yin LH. Trends of long noncoding RNA research from 2007 to 2016: a bibliometric analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:83114–83127. PMID:29137328. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.20851.
  • Baltussen A, Kindler CH. Citation classics in critical care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:902–910. PMID:14985952. doi:10.1007/s00134-004-2195-7.
  • Kim ES, Yoon DY, Kim HJ, Jeon HJ, Lee JY, Cho B-M, Lee K. Citation classics in neurointerventional research: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9:508–511. PMID:27127230. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012399.
  • Gu W, Yuan Y, Yang H, Qi G, Jin X, Yan J. A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential papers on COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:667–676. PMID:25848243. doi:10.2147/COPD.S74911.
  • Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ. 100 most cited articles in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:1487–1497. PMID:20922583. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1604-1.
  • Pepe A, Kurtz MJ. A measure of total research impact independent of time and discipline. PLoS One. 2012;7:e46428. PMID:23144782. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046428.
  • Qu Y, Zhang C, Hu Z, Li S, NKonging Y, Shang Y, Bai C. The 100 most influential publications in asthma from 1960 to 2017: A bibliometric analysis. Respir Med. 2018;137:206–212. PMID:29605206. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2018.03.014.
  • Tao T, Zhao X, Lou J, Bo L, Wang F, Li J, Deng X. The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis. Crit Care. 2012;16(3):R110. PMID:22731930. doi:10.1186/cc11401.
  • Kim HJ, Yoon DY, Kim ES, Lee K, Bae JS, Lee JH. The 100 most-cited articles in neuroimaging: A bibliometric analysis. Neuroimage. 2016;139:149–156. PMID:27327516. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.029.
  • Oelrich B, Peters R, Jung K. A bibliometric evaluation of publications in urological journals among European Union countries between 2000-2005. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1238–1248. PMID:17673361. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.06.050.
  • Moon JY, Yun EJ, Yoon DY, Choi C, Seo Y, Cho Y, Lim K, Baek S, Hong S, Yoon S, et al. The 100 most-cited articles focused on ultrasound imaging: a bibliometric analysis. Ultraschall Med. 2017;38(3):311–317. PMID:28511228. doi:10.1055/s-0042-120259.
  • Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama. 2006;295:90–93. PMID:16391221. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
  • Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Jama. 2002;287:2847–2850. PMID:12038930. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2847.
  • Tregoning J. How will you judge me if not by impact factor? Nature. 2018;558:345. PMID:29921857. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05467-5.
  • Loonen MP, Hage JJ, Kon M. Plastic surgery classics: characteristics of 50 top-cited articles in four plastic surgery journals since 1946. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:320e–327e. PMID:18453945. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816b13a9.
  • Chou CY, Chew SS, Patel DV, Ormonde SE, McGhee C. Publication and citation analysis of the Australian and New Zealand journal of ophthalmology and clinical and experimental ophthalmology over a 10-year period: the evolution of an ophthalmology journal. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:868–873. PMID:20092596. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02191.x.
  • Shadgan B, Roig M, Hajghanbari B, Reid WD. Top-cited articles in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:806–815. PMID:20434622. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.011.
  • Khan MS, Ullah W, Riaz IB, Bhulani N, Manning WJ, Tridandapani S, Khosa F. Top 100 cited articles in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a bibliometric analysis. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:87. PMID:27866473. doi:10.1186/s12968-016-0303-9.
  • Seglen PO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:224–229. PMID:9703393. doi:10.3109/17453679809000920.
  • Baltussen A, Kindler CH. Citation classics in anesthetic journals. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:443–451. PMID:14742385. doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000096185.13474.0a.
  • Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: the 100 top-cited papers in neurosurgical journals. J Neurosurg. 2010;112:223–232. PMID:20078192. doi:10.3171/2009.12.JNS091599.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.