↓ Skip to main content

Structure and assembly mechanism of virus-associated pyramids

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, December 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 (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Structure and assembly mechanism of virus-associated pyramids
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12551-017-0357-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tessa E. F. Quax, Bertram Daum

Abstract

Viruses have developed intricate molecular machines to infect, replicate within and escape from their host cells. Perhaps one of the most intriguing of these mechanisms is the pyramidal egress structure that has evolved in archaeal viruses, such as SIRV2 or STIV1. The structure and mechanism of these virus-associated pyramids (VAPs) has been studied by cryo-electron tomography and complementary biochemical techniques, revealing that VAPs are formed by multiple copies of a virus-encoded 10-kDa protein (PVAP) that integrate into the cell membrane and assemble into hollow, sevenfold symmetric pyramids. In this process, growing VAPs puncture the protective surface layer and ultimately open to release newly replicated viral particles into the surrounding medium. PVAP has the striking capability to spontaneously integrate and self-assemble into VAPs in biological membranes of the archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes. This renders the VAP a universal membrane remodelling system. In this review, we provide an overview of the VAP structure and assembly mechanism and discuss the possible use of VAPs in nano-biotechnology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 28%
Chemistry 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 22%
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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,655,567
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#84
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,064
of 439,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#3
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 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 799 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 439,388 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 91% of its contemporaries.