↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial nodule-specific cysteine-rich peptides disturb the integrity of bacterial outer and inner membranes and cause loss of membrane potential

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Antimicrobial nodule-specific cysteine-rich peptides disturb the integrity of bacterial outer and inner membranes and cause loss of membrane potential
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12941-016-0159-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kata R. Mikuláss, Krisztina Nagy, Balázs Bogos, Zsolt Szegletes, Etelka Kovács, Attila Farkas, György Váró, Éva Kondorosi, Attila Kereszt

Abstract

Certain legume plants produce a plethora of AMP-like peptides in their symbiotic cells. The cationic subgroup of the nodule-specific cysteine-rich (NCR) peptides has potent antimicrobial activity against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria as well as unicellular and filamentous fungi. It was shown by scanning and atomic force microscopies that the cationic peptides NCR335, NCR247 and Polymyxin B (PMB) affect differentially on the surfaces of Sinorhizobium meliloti bacteria. Similarly to PMB, both NCR peptides caused damages of the outer and inner membranes but at different extent and resulted in the loss of membrane potential that could be the primary reason of their antimicrobial activity. The primary reason for bacterial cell death upon treatment with cationic NCR peptides is the loss of membrane potential.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 32%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 30%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 5 14%

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 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,843,324
of 8,355,069 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#106
of 268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,054
of 259,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,355,069 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 52nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 268 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 259,869 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.