| Title |
DNA–protein interactions: methods for detection and analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11010-012-1269-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bipasha Dey, Sameer Thukral, Shruti Krishnan, Mainak Chakrobarty, Sahil Gupta, Chanchal Manghani, Vibha Rani |
| Abstract |
DNA-binding proteins control various cellular processes such as recombination, replication and transcription. This review is aimed to summarize some of the most commonly used techniques to determine DNA-protein interactions. In vitro techniques such as footprinting assays, electrophoretic mobility shift assay, southwestern blotting, yeast one-hybrid assay, phage display and proximity ligation assay have been discussed. The highly versatile in vivo techniques such as chromatin immunoprecipitation and its variants, DNA adenine methyl transferase identification as well as 3C and chip-loop assay have also been summarized. In addition, some in silico tools have been reviewed to provide computational basis for determining DNA-protein interactions. Biophysical techniques like fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) techniques, FRET-FLIM, circular dichroism, atomic force microscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance, surface plasmon resonance, etc. have also been highlighted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,022 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| India | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 1% |
| Unknown | 971 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 276 | 27% |
| Researcher | 165 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 136 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 129 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 41 | 4% |
| Other | 135 | 13% |
| Unknown | 140 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 412 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 258 | 25% |
| Chemistry | 67 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 17 | 2% |
| Other | 97 | 9% |
| Unknown | 149 | 15% |
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 16 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,200,430
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry
#379
of 2,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,520
of 156,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 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 2,293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 156,361 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.