↓ Skip to main content

Are nicotinic acetylcholine receptors coupled to G proteins?

Overview of attention for article published in BioEssays, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Are nicotinic acetylcholine receptors coupled to G proteins?
Published in
BioEssays, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/bies.201300082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadine Kabbani, Jacob C. Nordman, Brian A. Corgiat, Daniel P. Veltri, Amarda Shehu, Victoria A. Seymour, David J. Adams

Abstract

It was, until recently, accepted that the two classes of acetylcholine (ACh) receptors are distinct in an important sense: muscarinic ACh receptors signal via heterotrimeric GTP binding proteins (G proteins), whereas nicotinic ACh receptors (nAChRs) open to allow flux of Na+, Ca2+, and K+ ions into the cell after activation. Here we present evidence of direct coupling between G proteins and nAChRs in neurons. Based on proteomic, biophysical, and functional evidence, we hypothesize that binding to G proteins modulates the activity and signaling of nAChRs in cells. It is important to note that while this hypothesis is new for the nAChR, it is consistent with known interactions between G proteins and structurally related ligand-gated ion channels. Therefore, it underscores an evolutionarily conserved metabotropic mechanism of G protein signaling via nAChR channels.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 34%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 19%
Neuroscience 9 15%
Chemistry 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 4 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,980,960
of 12,182,944 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#674
of 2,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,029
of 162,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,182,944 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 162,058 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.