↓ Skip to main content

Masking autoprocessing of Clostridium difficile toxin A by the C-terminus combined repetitive oligo peptides

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemical & Biophysical Research Communications, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
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.
Title
Masking autoprocessing of Clostridium difficile toxin A by the C-terminus combined repetitive oligo peptides
Published in
Biochemical & Biophysical Research Communications, February 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yongrong Zhang, Therwa Hamza, Si Gao, Hanping Feng

Abstract

Clostridium difficile toxin A and B (TcdA and TcdB) are the major virulence factors of the bacterium, both of which consist of two enzymatic domains: an effector glucosyltransferase domain (GTD) and a cysteine protease domain (CPD) responsible for autocleavage and release of GTD. Although the CPDs from both toxins share a similar structure and mechanism of hexakisphosphate (InsP6) -induced activation, TcdA is substantially less sensitive to the autocleavage as compared with TcdB. In this study, we provided evidence of inter-domain regulation of CPD activity of TcdA and its autoprocessing. The C-terminus combined repetitive oligo peptides (CROPs) of TcdA reduced the accessibility of TcdB CPD to its substrate in a chimeric toxin TxB-Ar, consequently blocking autoprocessing. Moreover, interference of antibodies with the CROPs of full-length TcdA efficiently enhanced its GTD release. In conclusion, by utilizing chimeric toxins and specific antibodies, we identified that the CROPs of TcdA plays a crucial role in controlling the InsP6-mediated activation of CPD and autocleavage of GTD. Our data provides insights on the molecular mode of action of the C. difficile toxins.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Master 3 15%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biochemical & Biophysical Research Communications
#19,999
of 26,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,470
of 270,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemical & Biophysical Research Communications
#83
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,637 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 270,174 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.