↓ Skip to main content

C. elegans-based screen identifies lysosome-damaging alkaloids that induce STAT3-dependent lysosomal cell death

Overview of attention for article published in Protein & Cell, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
C. elegans-based screen identifies lysosome-damaging alkaloids that induce STAT3-dependent lysosomal cell death
Published in
Protein & Cell, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13238-018-0520-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Li, Yu Zhang, Qiwen Gan, Meng Xu, Xiao Ding, Guihua Tang, Jingjing Liang, Kai Liu, Xuezhao Liu, Xin Wang, Lingli Guo, Zhiyang Gao, Xiaojiang Hao, Chonglin Yang

Abstract

Lysosomes are degradation and signaling centers within the cell, and their dysfunction impairs a wide variety of cellular processes. To understand the cellular effect of lysosome damage, we screened natural small-molecule compounds that induce lysosomal abnormality using Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) as a model system. A group of vobasinyl-ibogan type bisindole alkaloids (ervachinines A-D) were identified that caused lysosome enlargement in C. elegans macrophage-like cells. Intriguingly, these compounds triggered cell death in the germ line independently of the canonical apoptosis pathway. In mammalian cells, ervachinines A-D induced lysosomal enlargement and damage, leading to leakage of cathepsin proteases, inhibition of autophagosome degradation and necrotic cell death. Further analysis revealed that this ervachinine-induced lysosome damage and lysosomal cell death depended on STAT3 signaling, but not RIP1 or RIP3 signaling. These findings suggest that lysosome-damaging compounds are promising reagents for dissecting signaling mechanisms underlying lysosome homeostasis and lysosome-related human disorders.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 10 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 19%
Chemistry 4 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,382,892
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from Protein & Cell
#423
of 741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,775
of 328,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Protein & Cell
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 328,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.