↓ Skip to main content

Design principles of a microtubule polymerase

Overview of attention for article published in eLife, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Design principles of a microtubule polymerase
Published in
eLife, June 2018
DOI 10.7554/elife.34574
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth A Geyer, Matthew P Miller, Chad A Brautigam, Sue Biggins, Luke M Rice

Abstract

Stu2/XMAP215 microtubule polymerases use multiple tubulin-binding TOG domains and a lattice-binding basic region to processively promote faster elongation. How the domain composition and organization of these proteins dictate polymerase activity, end localization, and processivity is unknown. We show that polymerase activity does not require different kinds of TOGs, nor are there strict requirements for how the TOGs are linked. We identify an unexpected antagonism between the tubulin-binding TOGs and the lattice-binding basic region: lattice binding by the basic region is weak when at least two TOGs engage tubulins, strong when TOGs are empty. End-localization of Stu2 requires unpolymerized tubulin, at least two TOGs, and polymerase competence. We propose a 'ratcheting' model for processivity: transfer of tubulin from TOGs to the lattice activates the basic region, retaining the polymerase at the end for subsequent rounds of tubulin binding and incorporation. These results clarify design principles of the polymerase.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 34%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Master 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 23%
Chemistry 3 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 23%
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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#12,215
of 14,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,893
of 328,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#311
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 14,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 328,592 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 349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.