↓ Skip to main content

Differential gene expression in porcine SK6 cells infected with wild-type and SAP domain-mutant foot-and-mouth disease virus

Overview of attention for article published in Virologica Sinica, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Differential gene expression in porcine SK6 cells infected with wild-type and SAP domain-mutant foot-and-mouth disease virus
Published in
Virologica Sinica, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12250-015-3709-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zixin Ni, Fan Yang, Weijun Cao, Xiangle Zhang, Ye Jin, Ruoqing Mao, Xiaoli Du, Weiwei Li, Jianhong Guo, Xiangtao Liu, Zixiang Zhu, Haixue Zheng

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) is the causative agent of a highly contagious disease in livestock. The viral proteinase L(pro) of FMDV is involved in pathogenicity, and mutation of the L(pro) SAP domain reduces FMDV pathogenicity in pigs. To determine the gene expression profiles associated with decreased pathogenicity in porcine cells, we performed transcriptome analysis using next-generation sequencing technology and compared differentially expressed genes in SK6 cells infected with FMDV containing L(pro) with either a wild-type or mutated version of the SAP domain. This analysis yielded 1,853 genes that exhibited a ≥ 2-fold change in expression and was validated by real-time quantitative PCR detection of several differentially expressed genes. Many of the differentially expressed genes correlated with antiviral responses corresponded to genes associated with transcription factors, immune regulation, cytokine production, inflammatory response, and apoptosis. Alterations in gene expression profiles may be responsible for the variations in pathogenicity observed between the two FMDV variants. Our results provided genes of interest for the further study of antiviral pathways and pathogenic mechanisms related to FMDV L(pro).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,322,106
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Virologica Sinica
#433
of 573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,132
of 300,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virologica Sinica
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.