↓ Skip to main content

Protease-Dead Separase Is Dominant Negative in the C. elegans Embryo

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
18 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.
Article details
Title
Protease-Dead Separase Is Dominant Negative in the C. elegans Embryo
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0108188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana M. Mitchell, Lindsey R. Uehlein-Klebanow, Joshua N. Bembenek

Abstract

Separase is a protease that promotes chromosome segregation at anaphase by cleaving cohesin. Several non-proteolytic functions of separase have been identified in other organisms. We created a transgenic C. elegans line that expresses protease-dead separase in embryos to further characterize separase function. We find that expression of protease-dead separase is dominant-negative in C. elegans embryos, not previously reported in other systems. The C. elegans embryo is an ideal system to study developmental processes in a genetically tractable system. However, a major limitation is the lack of an inducible gene expression system for the embryo. We have developed two methods that allow for the propagation of lines carrying dominant-negative transgenes and have applied them to characterize expression of protease-dead separase in embryos. Using these methods, we show that protease-dead separase causes embryo lethality, and that protease-dead separase cannot rescue separase mutants. These data suggest that protease-dead separase interferes with endogenous separase function, possibly by binding substrates and protecting them from cleavage.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 44%
Researcher 5 28%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 December 2015.
All research outputs
#12,286,697
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#107,628
of 224,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,577
of 294,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,558
of 5,463 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 294,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,463 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 53% of its contemporaries.