↓ Skip to main content

Golgi Associated HIF1a Serves as a Reserve in Melanoma Cells

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Golgi Associated HIF1a Serves as a Reserve in Melanoma Cells
Published in
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/jcb.25381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander J Lakhter, Tim Lahm, Hal E Broxmeyer, Samisubbu R Naidu

Abstract

Hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha (HIF1a) is a key transcriptional regulator that enables cellular metabolic adaptation to low levels of oxygen. Multiple mechanisms, including lysosomal degradation, control the levels of HIF1a protein. Here we show that HIF1a protein degradation is resistant to lysosomal inhibition and that HIF1a is associated with the Golgi compartment in melanoma cells. Although pharmacological inhibitors of prolyl hydroxylation, neddylation and the proteasome inhibited degradation of HIF1a, attenuation of lysosomal activity with chloroquine did not alter the levels of HIF1a or its association with Golgi. Pharmacological disruption of Golgi resulted in nuclear accumulation of HIF1a. However, blockade of ER-Golgi protein transport in hypoxia reduced the transcript levels of HIF1a target genes. These findings suggest a possible role for the oxygen-dependent protein folding process from the ER-Golgi compartment in fine-tuning HIF1a transcriptional output. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 41%
Environmental Science 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,773,420
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cellular Biochemistry
#3,047
of 4,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,790
of 274,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cellular Biochemistry
#26
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,720 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 274,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 56% of its contemporaries.