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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Structures of the Gasdermin D C-Terminal Domains Reveal Mechanisms of Autoinhibition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Folding & Design, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.str.2018.03.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhonghua Liu, Chuanping Wang, Joseph K. Rathkey, Jie Yang, George R. Dubyak, Derek W. Abbott, Tsan Sam Xiao |
| Abstract |
Pyroptosis is an inflammatory form of programmed cell death that plays important roles in immune protection against infections and in inflammatory disorders. Gasdermin D (GSDMD) is an executor of pyroptosis upon cleavage by caspases-1/4/5/11 following canonical and noncanonical inflammasome activation. GSDMD N-terminal domain assembles membrane pores to induce cytolysis, whereas its C-terminal domain inhibits cell death through intramolecular association with the N domain. The molecular mechanisms of autoinhibition for GSDMD are poorly characterized. Here we report the crystal structures of the human and murine GSDMD C-terminal domains, which differ from those of the full-length murine GSDMA3 and the human GSDMB C-terminal domain. Mutations of GSDMD C-domain residues predicted to locate at its interface with the N-domain enhanced pyroptosis. Our results suggest that GSDMDs may employ a distinct mode of intramolecular domain interaction and autoinhibition, which may be relevant to its unique role in pyroptosis downstream of inflammasome activation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 24% |
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 32% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 15 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,479,510
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Folding & Design
#1,589
of 3,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,053
of 348,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folding & Design
#24
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 348,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.