↓ Skip to main content

Mechanistic differences between HIV-1 and SIV nucleocapsid proteins and cross-species HIV-1 genomic RNA recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Retrovirology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Mechanistic differences between HIV-1 and SIV nucleocapsid proteins and cross-species HIV-1 genomic RNA recognition
Published in
Retrovirology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12977-016-0322-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klara Post, Erik D. Olson, M. Nabuan Naufer, Robert J. Gorelick, Ioulia Rouzina, Mark C. Williams, Karin Musier-Forsyth, Judith G. Levin

Abstract

The nucleocapsid (NC) domain of HIV-1 Gag is responsible for specific recognition and packaging of genomic RNA (gRNA) into new viral particles. This occurs through specific interactions between the Gag NC domain and the Psi packaging signal in gRNA. In addition to this critical function, NC proteins are also nucleic acid (NA) chaperone proteins that facilitate NA rearrangements during reverse transcription. Although the interaction with Psi and chaperone activity of HIV-1 NC have been well characterized in vitro, little is known about simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) NC. Non-human primates are frequently used as a platform to study retroviral infection in vivo; thus, it is important to understand underlying mechanistic differences between HIV-1 and SIV NC. Here, we characterize SIV NC chaperone activity for the first time. Only modest differences are observed in the ability of SIV NC to facilitate reactions that mimic the minus-strand annealing and transfer steps of reverse transcription relative to HIV-1 NC, with the latter displaying slightly higher strand transfer and annealing rates. Quantitative single molecule DNA stretching studies and dynamic light scattering experiments reveal that these differences are due to significantly increased DNA compaction energy and higher aggregation capability of HIV-1 NC relative to the SIV protein. Using salt-titration binding assays, we find that both proteins are strikingly similar in their ability to specifically interact with HIV-1 Psi RNA. In contrast, they do not demonstrate specific binding to an RNA derived from the putative SIV packaging signal. Based on these studies, we conclude that (1) HIV-1 NC is a slightly more efficient NA chaperone protein than SIV NC, (2) mechanistic differences between the NA interactions of highly similar retroviral NC proteins are revealed by quantitative single molecule DNA stretching, and (3) SIV NC demonstrates cross-species recognition of the HIV-1 Psi RNA packaging signal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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 %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 October 2023.
All research outputs
#15,971,853
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Retrovirology
#734
of 1,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,377
of 424,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retrovirology
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 424,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.