↓ Skip to main content

Control of carbon flux to glutamate excretion in Klebsiella pneumoniae: the role of the indigenous plasmid and its encoded isocitrate dehydrogenase

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Control of carbon flux to glutamate excretion in Klebsiella pneumoniae: the role of the indigenous plasmid and its encoded isocitrate dehydrogenase
Published in
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10295-015-1689-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mansi El-Mansi, Francois Trappey, Ewan Clark, Malcolm Campbell

Abstract

Klebsiella pneumoniae (NCTC, CL687/80) harbors a large indigenous plasmid (p(C3)), which in addition to encoding for citrate utilization, proline synthesis and glutamate excretion, it uniquely carries the structural gene (icd); encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase (ICDH). Flux analysis revealed that ICDH, despite its role in the generation of NADPH required for glutamate dehydrogenase, is not rate-limiting (controlling) in central metabolism as evidenced by a negative flux control coefficient and an adverse effect of overexpression (14-fold) on glutamate excretion. More significantly, however, this paper presents, for the first time, clear evidence that the accumulation of glutamate and its subsequent excretion is associated with the C3 plasmid-encoded regulatory elements, which trigger a shift-down in the activity of α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase, both in the K. pneumoniae parental strain as well as in the E. coli exconjugants strains. This finding opens the door for the exploitation of regulatory elements as a tool for manipulating flux in microbial cell factories.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Professor 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
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 01 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
#1,380
of 1,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,836
of 294,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,612 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 294,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.