↓ Skip to main content

Coordinate-based co-localization-mediated analysis of arrestin clustering upon stimulation of the C–C chemokine receptor 5 with RANTES/CCL5 analogues

Overview of attention for article published in Histochemistry and Cell Biology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Coordinate-based co-localization-mediated analysis of arrestin clustering upon stimulation of the C–C chemokine receptor 5 with RANTES/CCL5 analogues
Published in
Histochemistry and Cell Biology, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00418-014-1206-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Tarancón Díez, Claudia Bönsch, Sebastian Malkusch, Zinnia Truan, Mihaela Munteanu, Mike Heilemann, Oliver Hartley, Ulrike Endesfelder, Alexandre Fürstenberg

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptor activation and desensitization leads to recruitment of arrestin proteins from cytosolic pools to the cell membrane where they form clusters difficult to characterize due to their small size and further mediate receptor internalization. We quantitatively investigated clustering of arrestin 3 induced by potent anti-HIV analogues of the chemokine RANTES after stimulation of the C-C chemokine receptor 5 using single-molecule localization-based super-resolution microscopy. We determined arrestin 3 cluster sizes and relative fractions of arrestin 3 molecules in each cluster through image-based analysis of the localization data by adapting a method originally developed for co-localization analysis from molecular coordinates. We found that only classical agonists in the set of tested ligands were able to efficiently recruit arrestin 3 to clusters mostly larger than 150 nm in size and compare our results with existing data on arrestin 2 clustering induced by the same chemokine analogues.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 27%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 23%
Physics and Astronomy 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
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 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#19,702,729
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Histochemistry and Cell Biology
#681
of 926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,132
of 225,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Histochemistry and Cell Biology
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 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 926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 225,735 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.