↓ Skip to main content

Synthetic Morphology Using Alternative Inputs

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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.
Title
Synthetic Morphology Using Alternative Inputs
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0006946
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiromasa Tanaka, Tau-Mu Yi

Abstract

Designing the shape and size of a cell is an interesting challenge for synthetic biology. Prolonged exposure to the mating pheromone alpha-factor induces an unusual morphology in yeast cells: multiple mating projections. The goal of this work was to reproduce the multiple projections phenotype in the absence of alpha-factor using a gain-of-function approach termed "Alternative Inputs (AIs)". An alternative input is defined as any genetic manipulation that can activate the signaling pathway instead of the natural input. Interestingly, none of the alternative inputs were sufficient to produce multiple projections although some produced a single projection. Then, we extended our search by creating all combinations of alternative inputs and deletions that were summarized in an AIs-Deletions matrix. We found a genetic manipulation (AI-Ste5p ste2Delta) that enhanced the formation of multiple projections. Following up this lead, we demonstrated that AI-Ste4p and AI-Ste5p were sufficient to produce multiple projections when combined. Further, we showed that overexpression of a membrane-targeted form of Ste5p alone could also induce multiple projections. Thus, we successfully re-engineered the multiple projections mating morphology using alternative inputs without alpha-factor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 7%
Portugal 1 4%
Italy 1 4%
Brazil 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Mexico 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 19 70%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 3 11%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 52%
Computer Science 4 15%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,278,165
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,183
of 193,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,645
of 91,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#430
of 527 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 91,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 527 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.