You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
EGF-Dependent Association of Phospholipase C-γ1 with c-Cbl
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Cell Research, July 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1006/excr.2002.5545 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Denis Tvorogov, Graham Carpenter |
| Abstract |
The structure of phospholipase Cgamma1 (PLC-gamma1) contains two SH2 domains and one SH3 domain. While the function of the SH2 domains in PLC-gamma1 are well described, to date no growth factor-dependent function for the SH3 domain has been presented. To assess SH3 domain function in the context of the full-length PLC-gamma1, this domain was deleted and the mutant was stably expressed in Plcg1 null mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Following EGF treatment of cells, the PLC-gamma1DeltaSH3 mutant displayed the same increased level of tyrosine phosphorylation and association with EGF receptor as wild-type PLC-gamma1. Also, the SH3 mutant demonstrated membrane translocation and mediated the mobilization of intracellular Ca(2+) in response to EGF. c-Cbl is shown to associate with tyrosine phosphorylated PLC-gamma1 in an EGF-dependent manner, but no association was detected with the PLC-gamma1DeltaSH3 mutant. Interestingly, PDGF, which also tyrosine phosphorylates PLC-gamma1, failed to induce c-Cbl association with PLC-gamma1 and also provoked no c-Cbl tyrosine phosphorylation. This suggests that c-Cbl tyrosine phosphorylation is necessary for its interaction with PLC-gamma1. Evidence of a direct association of c-Cbl with PLC-gamma1 was provided by pull-down and overlay experiments, using glutathione S-transferase fusion proteins that contain the SH3 domain of PLC-gamma1. The data, therefore, show an EGF-inducible direct association of PLC-gamma1 with c-Cbl in vivo that is mediated by the SH3 domain of PLC-gamma1. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 37% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 32% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 October 2019.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Cell Research
#1,345
of 5,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,876
of 47,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Cell Research
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,318 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 47,905 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.