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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Concerted In Vitro Trimming of Viral HLA-B27-Restricted Ligands by Human ERAP1 and ERAP2 Aminopeptidases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0079596 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elena Lorente, Alejandro Barriga, Carolina Johnstone, Carmen Mir, Mercedes Jiménez, Daniel López |
| Abstract |
In the classical human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I antigen processing and presentation pathway, the antigenic peptides are generated from viral proteins by multiple proteolytic cleavages of the proteasome (and in some cases other cytosolic proteases) and transported to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) lumen where they are exposed to aminopeptidase activity. In human cells, two different ER-resident enzymes, ERAP1 and ERAP2, can trim the N-terminally extended residues of peptide precursors. In this study, the possible cooperative effect of generating five naturally processed HLA-B27 ligands by both proteases was analyzed. We identified differences in the products obtained with increased detection of natural HLA-B27 ligands by comparing double versus single enzyme digestions by mass spectrometry analysis. These in vitro data suggest that each enzyme can use the degradation products of the other as a substrate for new N-terminal trimming, indicating concerted aminoproteolytic activity of ERAP 1 and ERAP2. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 04 November 2013.
All research outputs
#18,353,475
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,253
of 194,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,879
of 213,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,820
of 5,128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 213,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.