↓ Skip to main content

Behaviour of intrinsically disordered proteins in protein–protein complexes with an emphasis on fuzziness

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Behaviour of intrinsically disordered proteins in protein–protein complexes with an emphasis on fuzziness
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00018-017-2560-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan G. Olsen, Kaare Teilum, Birthe B. Kragelund

Abstract

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) do not, by themselves, fold into a compact globular structure. They are extremely dynamic and flexible, and are typically involved in signalling and transduction of information through binding to other macromolecules. The reason for their existence may lie in their malleability, which enables them to bind several different partners with high specificity. In addition, their interactions with other macromolecules can be regulated by a variable amount of chemically diverse post-translational modifications. Four kinetically and energetically different types of complexes between an IDP and another macromolecule are reviewed: (1) simple two-state binding involving a single binding site, (2) avidity, (3) allovalency and (4) fuzzy binding; the last three involving more than one site. Finally, a qualitative definition of fuzzy binding is suggested, examples are provided, and its distinction to allovalency and avidity is highlighted and discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Other 8 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 73 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 15%
Chemistry 20 12%
Physics and Astronomy 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 39 23%
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 26 June 2021.
All research outputs
#16,031,680
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#3,071
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,204
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#29
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 318,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.