↓ Skip to main content

Brinker possesses multiple mechanisms for repression because its primary co-repressor, Groucho, may be unavailable in some cell types

Overview of attention for article published in Development (09501991), October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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.
Title
Brinker possesses multiple mechanisms for repression because its primary co-repressor, Groucho, may be unavailable in some cell types
Published in
Development (09501991), October 2013
DOI 10.1242/dev.099366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priyanka Upadhyai, Gerard Campbell

Abstract

Transcriptional repressors function primarily by recruiting co-repressors, which are accessory proteins that antagonize transcription by modifying chromatin structure. Although a repressor could function by recruiting just a single co-repressor, many can recruit more than one, with Drosophila Brinker (Brk) recruiting the co-repressors CtBP and Groucho (Gro), in addition to possessing a third repression domain, 3R. Previous studies indicated that Gro is sufficient for Brk to repress targets in the wing, questioning why it should need to recruit CtBP, a short-range co-repressor, when Gro is known to be able to function over longer distances. To resolve this we have used genomic engineering to generate a series of brk mutants that are unable to recruit Gro, CtBP and/or have 3R deleted. These reveal that although the recruitment of Gro is necessary and can be sufficient for Brk to make an almost morphologically wild-type fly, it is insufficient during oogenesis, where Brk must utilize CtBP and 3R to pattern the egg shell appropriately. Gro insufficiency during oogenesis can be explained by its downregulation in Brk-expressing cells through phosphorylation downstream of EGFR signaling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 35%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 40%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
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 01 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Development (09501991)
#8,914
of 9,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,053
of 219,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Development (09501991)
#71
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 219,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.