↓ Skip to main content

Artificial bio-nanomachines based on protein needles derived from bacteriophage T4

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Artificial bio-nanomachines based on protein needles derived from bacteriophage T4
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12551-017-0336-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Inaba, Takafumi Ueno

Abstract

Bacteriophage T4 is a natural bio-nanomachine which achieves efficient infection of host cells via cooperative motion of specific three-dimensional protein architectures. The relationships between the protein structures and their dynamic functions have recently been clarified. In this review we summarize the design principles for fabrication of nanomachines using the component proteins of bacteriophage T4 based on these recent advances. We focus on the protein needle known as gp5, which is located at the center of the baseplate at the end of the contractile tail of bacteriophage T4. This protein needle plays a critical role in directly puncturing host cells, and analysis has revealed that it contains a common motif used for cell puncture in other known injection systems, such as T6SS. Our artificial needle based on the β-helical domain of gp5 retains the ability to penetrate cells and can be engineered to deliver various cargos into living cells. Thus, the unique components of bacteriophage T4 and other natural nanomachines have great potential for use as molecular scaffolds in efforts to fabricate new bio-nanomachines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Chemistry 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,963,567
of 25,870,142 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#107
of 959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,009
of 321,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 959 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 321,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 88% of its contemporaries.