↓ Skip to main content

Mammalian l‐to‐d‐amino‐acid‐residue isomerase from platypus venom

Overview of attention for article published in Febs Letters, February 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Mammalian l‐to‐d‐amino‐acid‐residue isomerase from platypus venom
Published in
Febs Letters, February 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.01.089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan M. Torres, Maria Tsampazi, Chryssanthi Tsampazi, Eleanor C. Kennett, Katherine Belov, Dominic P. Geraghty, Paramjit S. Bansal, Paul F. Alewood, Philip W. Kuchel

Abstract

The presence of d-amino-acid-containing polypeptides, defensin-like peptide (DLP)-2 and Ornithorhyncus venom C-type natriuretic peptide (OvCNP)b, in platypus venom suggested the existence of a mammalian d-amino-acid-residue isomerase(s) responsible for the modification of the all-l-amino acid precursors. We show here that this enzyme(s) is present in the venom gland extract and is responsible for the creation of DLP-2 from DLP-4 and OvCNPb from OvCNPa. The isomerisation reaction is freely reversible and under well defined laboratory conditions catalyses the interconversion of the DLPs to full equilibration. The isomerase is approximately 50-60 kDa and is inhibited by methanol and the peptidase inhibitor amastatin. This is the first known l-to-d-amino-acid-residue isomerase in a mammal.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 32%
Chemistry 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Febs Letters
#13,426
of 14,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,233
of 170,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Febs Letters
#97
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 14,379 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 170,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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.