↓ Skip to main content

Direct observation of catch bonds involving cell-adhesion molecules

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, May 2003
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
597 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
354 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Direct observation of catch bonds involving cell-adhesion molecules
Published in
Nature, May 2003
DOI 10.1038/nature01605
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan T. Marshall, Mian Long, James W. Piper, Tadayuki Yago, Rodger P. McEver, Cheng Zhu

Abstract

Bonds between adhesion molecules are often mechanically stressed. A striking example is the tensile force applied to selectin-ligand bonds, which mediate the tethering and rolling of flowing leukocytes on vascular surfaces. It has been suggested that force could either shorten bond lifetimes, because work done by the force could lower the energy barrier between the bound and free states ('slip'), or prolong bond lifetimes by deforming the molecules such that they lock more tightly ('catch'). Whereas slip bonds have been widely observed, catch bonds have not been demonstrated experimentally. Here, using atomic force microscopy and flow-chamber experiments, we show that increasing force first prolonged and then shortened the lifetimes of P-selectin complexes with P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1, revealing both catch and slip bond behaviour. Transitions between catch and slip bonds might explain why leukocyte rolling on selectins first increases and then decreases as wall shear stress increases. This dual response to force provides a mechanism for regulating cell adhesion under conditions of variable mechanical stress.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 354 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Germany 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Japan 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 323 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 33%
Researcher 79 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 31 9%
Student > Master 30 8%
Professor 24 7%
Other 74 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 111 31%
Engineering 55 16%
Physics and Astronomy 54 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 12%
Chemistry 26 7%
Other 67 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,668,067
of 11,415,522 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#32,419
of 59,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,615,601
of 10,748,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#31,930
of 58,616 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,415,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 59,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 70.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 10,748,103 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58,616 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.