↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the DING protein from the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus with human phosphate-binding protein and Pseudomonas fluorescence DING counterparts

Overview of attention for article published in Extremophiles, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the DING protein from the archaeon Sulfolobus solfataricus with human phosphate-binding protein and Pseudomonas fluorescence DING counterparts
Published in
Extremophiles, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00792-017-0985-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Porzio, Anna De Maio, Teresa Ricciardi, Carmela Mistretta, Giuseppe Manco, Maria Rosaria Faraone-Mennella

Abstract

DING proteins represent a new group of 40 kDa-related members, ubiquitous in living organisms. The family also include the DING protein from Sulfolobus solfataricus, functionally related to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases. Here, the archaeal protein has been compared with the human Phosphate-Binding Protein and the Pseudomonas fluorescence DING enzyme, by enzyme assays and immune cross-reactivity. Surprisingly, as the Sulfolobus enzyme, the Human and Pseudomonas proteins display poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activity, whereas a phosphatase activity was only present in Sulfolobus and human protein, despite the conserved phosphate-binding site residues in Pseudomonas DING. All proteins were positive to anti-DING antibodies and gave a comparable pattern of anti-poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase immunoreactivity with two bands, at around 40 kDa and roughly at the double of this molecular mass. The latter signal was present in all Sulfolobus enzyme preparations and proved not due to either a contaminant or a precursor protein, but likely being a dimeric form of the 40 kDa polypeptide. The common immunological and partly enzymatic behavior linking human, Pseudomonas and Sulfolobus DING proteins, makes the archaeal protein an important model system to investigate DING protein function and evolution within the cell.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 29%
Student > Postgraduate 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 43%
Unknown 4 57%
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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Extremophiles
#609
of 801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,414
of 443,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Extremophiles
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 801 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 443,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.