↓ Skip to main content

The pros and cons of autophagic flux among herpesviruses

Overview of attention for article published in Autophagy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
The pros and cons of autophagic flux among herpesviruses
Published in
Autophagy, April 2015
DOI 10.1080/15548627.2015.1017223
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Autophagy has been intensively studied in herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1), a human alphaherpesviruses. The HSV-1 genome encodes a well-known neurovirulence protein called ICP34.5. When the gene encoding this protein is deleted from the genome, the virus is markedly less virulent when injected into the brains of animal models. Subsequent characterization of ICP34.5 established that the neurovirulence protein interacts with BECN1, thereby inhibiting autophagy and facilitating viral replication in the brain. However, an ortholog of the ICP34.5 gene is lacking in the genomes of other closely related alpha herpesviruses, such as varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Further, autophagosomes are easily identified in the exanthem (rash) that is the hallmark of both VZV diseases-varicella and herpes zoster. Inhibition of autophagy leads to diminished VZV titers. Finally, no block is detected in studies of autophagic flux following VZV infection. Thus autophagy appears to be proviral during VZV infection while antiviral during HSV-1 infection. Because divergence to this degree is extremely unusual for 2 closely related herpesviruses, we postulate that VZV has accommodated its infectious cycle to benefit from autophagic flux, whereas HSV-1 has captured cellular immunomodulatory genes to inhibit autophagy.

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 26 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 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 35%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Master 3 12%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 23%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 23%
Unknown 5 19%
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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,273,512
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Autophagy
#2,050
of 2,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,844
of 265,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Autophagy
#38
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 265,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.