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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Dynein Associates with oskar mRNPs and Is Required For Their Efficient Net Plus-End Localization in Drosophila Oocytes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0080605 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paulomi Sanghavi, Shobha Laxani, Xuan Li, Simon L. Bullock, Graydon B. Gonsalvez |
| Abstract |
In order for eukaryotic cells to function properly, they must establish polarity. The Drosophila oocyte uses mRNA localization to establish polarity and hence provides a genetically tractable model in which to study this process. The spatial restriction of oskar mRNA and its subsequent protein product is necessary for embryonic patterning. The localization of oskar mRNA requires microtubules and microtubule-based motor proteins. Null mutants in Kinesin heavy chain (Khc), the motor subunit of the plus end-directed Kinesin-1, result in oskar mRNA delocalization. Although the majority of oskar particles are non-motile in khc nulls, a small fraction of particles display active motility. Thus, a motor other than Kinesin-1 could conceivably also participate in oskar mRNA localization. Here we show that Dynein heavy chain (Dhc), the motor subunit of the minus end-directed Dynein complex, extensively co-localizes with Khc and oskar mRNA. In addition, immunoprecipitation of the Dynein complex specifically co-precipitated oskar mRNA and Khc. Lastly, germline-specific depletion of Dhc resulted in oskar mRNA and Khc delocalization. Our results therefore suggest that efficient posterior localization of oskar mRNA requires the concerted activities of both Dynein and Kinesin-1. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 29% |
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,428,117
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#18,418
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,735
of 214,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#516
of 5,136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 214,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.