↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

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.
Article details
Title
Changing Folding and Binding Stability in a Viral Coat Protein: A Comparison between Substitutions Accessible through Mutation and Those Fixed by Natural Selection
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112988
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Previous studies have shown that most random amino acid substitutions destabilize protein folding (i.e. increase the folding free energy). No analogous studies have been carried out for protein-protein binding. Here we use a structure-based model of the major coat protein in a simple virus, bacteriophage φX174, to estimate the free energy of folding of a single coat protein and binding of five coat proteins within a pentameric unit. We confirm and extend previous work in finding that most accessible substitutions destabilize both protein folding and protein-protein binding. We compare the pool of accessible substitutions with those observed among the φX174-like wild phage and in experimental evolution with φX174. We find that observed substitutions have smaller effects on stability than expected by chance. An analysis of adaptations at high temperatures suggests that selection favors either substitutions with no effect on stability or those that simultaneously stabilize protein folding and slightly destabilize protein binding. We speculate that these mutations might involve adjusting the rate of capsid assembly. At normal laboratory temperature there is little evidence of directional selection. Finally, we show that cumulative changes in stability are highly variable; sometimes they are well beyond the bounds of single substitution changes and sometimes they are not. The variation leads us to conclude that phenotype selection acts on more than just stability. Instances of larger cumulative stability change (never via a single substitution despite their availability) lead us to conclude that selection views stability at a local, not a global, level.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 29 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 %
United States 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 34%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 17%
Physics and Astronomy 3 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 March 2020.
All research outputs
#6,093,570
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#58,085
of 224,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,216
of 423,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,124
of 5,020 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 73% 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 423,525 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,020 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.