↓ Skip to main content

DNase Sda1 provides selection pressure for a switch to invasive group A streptococcal infection

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Medicine, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
355 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
DNase Sda1 provides selection pressure for a switch to invasive group A streptococcal infection
Published in
Nature Medicine, July 2007
DOI 10.1038/nm1612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J Walker, Andrew Hollands, Martina L Sanderson-Smith, Jason N Cole, Joshua K Kirk, Anna Henningham, Jason D McArthur, Katrin Dinkla, Ramy K Aziz, Rita G Kansal, Amelia J Simpson, John T Buchanan, Gursharan S Chhatwal, Malak Kotb, Victor Nizet

Abstract

Most invasive bacterial infections are caused by species that more commonly colonize the human host with minimal symptoms. Although phenotypic or genetic correlates underlying a bacterium's shift to enhanced virulence have been studied, the in vivo selection pressures governing such shifts are poorly understood. The globally disseminated M1T1 clone of group A Streptococcus (GAS) is linked with the rare but life-threatening syndromes of necrotizing fasciitis and toxic shock syndrome. Mutations in the GAS control of virulence regulatory sensor kinase (covRS) operon are associated with severe invasive disease, abolishing expression of a broad-spectrum cysteine protease (SpeB) and allowing the recruitment and activation of host plasminogen on the bacterial surface. Here we describe how bacteriophage-encoded GAS DNase (Sda1), which facilitates the pathogen's escape from neutrophil extracellular traps, serves as a selective force for covRS mutation. The results provide a paradigm whereby natural selection exerted by the innate immune system generates hypervirulent bacterial variants with increased risk of systemic dissemination.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 138 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 28%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Master 14 10%
Professor 7 5%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 34%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 10%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 29 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 22 January 2009.
All research outputs
#15,828,810
of 23,520,142 outputs
Outputs from Nature Medicine
#8,063
of 8,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,361
of 68,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Medicine
#46
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,520,142 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 100.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 68,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.