↓ Skip to main content

Membrane-associated Ras dimers are isoform-specific: K-Ras dimers differ from H-Ras dimers.

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemical Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Membrane-associated Ras dimers are isoform-specific: K-Ras dimers differ from H-Ras dimers.
Published in
Biochemical Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1042/bcj20160031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyunbum Jang, Serena Muratcioglu, Attila Gursoy, Ozlem Keskin, Ruth Nussinov

Abstract

Are the dimer structures of active Ras isoforms similar? This question is significant since Ras can activate its effectors as a monomer; however, as a dimer it promotes Raf's activation and MAPK cell signaling. Here, we model possible catalytic domain dimer interfaces of membrane-anchored GTP-bound K-Ras4B and H-Ras, and compare their conformations. The active helical dimers formed by the allosteric lobe are isoform-specific: K-Ras4B-GTP favors the α3 and α4 interface; H-Ras-GTP favors α4 and α5. Both isoforms also populate a stable β-sheet dimer interface formed by the effector lobe; a less stable β-sandwich interface is sustained by salt-bridges of the β-sheet side-chains. Raf's high affinity β-sheet interaction is promoted by the active helical interface. Collectively, Ras isoforms' dimer conformations are not uniform; instead, the isoform-specific dimers reflect the favored interactions of the hypervariable regions (HVRs) with cell membrane microdomains, biasing the effector binding site orientations - thus isoform binding selectivity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 17%
Chemistry 9 15%
Computer Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,854,433
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Biochemical Journal
#9,892
of 11,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,142
of 345,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemical Journal
#49
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,413 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 345,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.