↓ Skip to main content

F-box proteins: the key to protein degradation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, February 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
Title
F-box proteins: the key to protein degradation
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, February 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11373-005-9058-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret S. Ho, Pei-I Tsai, Cheng-Ting Chien

Abstract

The eukaryotic protein degradation pathway involves the ubiquitin (Ub) modification of substrates targeted for degradation by the 26S proteasome. The addition of Ub, a process called ubiquitination, is mediated by enzymes including the E3 Ub ligases which transfer the Ub to targeted substrates. A major type of E3 Ub ligases, the SCF (Skp-Cullin-F-box) complex, is composed of four major components: Skp1, Cul1/Cdc53, Roc1/Rbx1/Hrt1, and an F-box protein. The F-box component of the SCF machineries is responsible for recognizing different substrates for ubiquitination. Interaction with components of the SCF complex is mediated through the F-box motif of the F-box protein while it associates with phosphorylated substrates through its second protein-protein interaction motif such as Trp-Asp (WD) repeats or leucine-rich repeats (LRRs). By targeting diverse substrates, F-box proteins exert controls over stability of proteins and regulate the mechanisms for a wide-range of cellular processes. Here we discuss the importance of F-box proteins by providing a general overview and examples of how F-box proteins function in various cellular settings such as tissue development, cell proliferation, and cell death, in the modeling organism Drosophila.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 141 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 25%
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 9%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 16 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,696,232
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#176
of 986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,792
of 154,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 154,720 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them