↓ Skip to main content

γ‑Secretase Inhibitors and Modulators Induce Distinct Conformational Changes in the Active Sites of γ‑Secretase and Signal Peptide Peptidase

Overview of attention for article published in ACS Chemical Biology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
γ‑Secretase Inhibitors and Modulators Induce Distinct Conformational Changes in the Active Sites of γ‑Secretase and Signal Peptide Peptidase
Published in
ACS Chemical Biology, June 2015
DOI 10.1021/acschembio.5b00321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalya Gertsik, De-Ming Chau, Yue-Ming Li

Abstract

γ-Secretase inhibitors (GSIs) and modulators (GSMs) are at the frontline of cancer and Alzheimer's disease research, respectively. While both are therapeutically promising, not much is known about their interactions with proteins other than γ-secretase. Signal peptide peptidase (SPP), like γ-secretase, is a multi-span transmembrane aspartyl protease that catalyzes regulated intramembrane proteolysis. We used active site-directed photophore walking probes to study the effects of different GSIs and GSMs on the active sites of γ-secretase and SPP and found that non-transition state GSIs inhibit labeling of γ-secretase by activity-based probes, but enhance labeling of SPP. The opposite is true of GSMs, which have little effect on the labeling of γ-secretase but diminish labeling of SPP. These results demonstrate that GSIs and GSMs are altering the structure of not only γ-secretase, but also SPP, leading to potential changes in enzyme activity and specificity that may impact clinical outcomes of these molecules.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 24%
Chemistry 5 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 June 2015.
All research outputs
#4,175,748
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from ACS Chemical Biology
#931
of 3,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,130
of 266,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACS Chemical Biology
#13
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 266,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.