↓ Skip to main content

Heterologous expression of abaecin peptide from Apis mellifera in Pichia pastoris

Overview of attention for article published in Microbial Cell Factories, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Heterologous expression of abaecin peptide from Apis mellifera in Pichia pastoris
Published in
Microbial Cell Factories, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12934-017-0689-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis Prudencio Luiz, Juliana Franco Almeida, Luiz Ricardo Goulart, Nilson Nicolau-Junior, Carlos Ueira-Vieira

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are the first line of host immune defense against pathogens. Among AMPs from the honeybee Apis mellifera, abaecin is a major broad-spectrum antibacterial proline-enriched cationic peptide. For heterologous expression of abaecin in Pichia pastoris, we designed an ORF with HisTag, and the codon usage was optimized. The gene was chemically synthetized and cloned in the pUC57 vector. The new ORF was sub-cloned in the pPIC9 expression vector and transformed into P. pastoris. After selection of positive clones, the expression was induced by methanol. The supernatant was analyzed at different times to determine the optimal time for the recombinant peptide expression. As a proof-of-concept, Escherichia coli was co-incubated with the recombinant peptide to verify its antimicrobial potential. Briefly, the recombinant Abaecin (rAbaecin) has efficiently decreased E. coli growth (P < 0.05) through an in vitro assay, and may be considered as a novel therapeutic agent that may complement other conventional antibiotic therapies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Chemistry 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,477,246
of 23,506,079 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Cell Factories
#512
of 1,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,199
of 312,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Cell Factories
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,506,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,656 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 312,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.