↓ Skip to main content

Design and analysis of LacI-repressed promoters and DNA-looping in a cyanobacterium

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Engineering, January 2014
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Design and analysis of LacI-repressed promoters and DNA-looping in a cyanobacterium
Published in
Journal of Biological Engineering, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1754-1611-8-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Camsund, Thorsten Heidorn, Peter Lindblad

Abstract

Cyanobacteria are solar-powered prokaryotes useful for sustainable production of valuable molecules, but orthogonal and regulated promoters are lacking. The Lac repressor (LacI) from Escherichia coli is a well-studied transcription factor that is orthogonal to cyanobacteria and represses transcription by binding a primary lac operator (lacO), blocking RNA-polymerase. Repression can be enhanced through DNA-looping, when a LacI-tetramer binds two spatially separated lacO and loops the DNA. Ptrc is a commonly used LacI-repressed promoter that is inefficiently repressed in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis PCC 6803. Ptrc2O, a version of Ptrc with two lacO, is more efficiently repressed, indicating DNA-looping. To investigate the inefficient repression of Ptrc and cyanobacterial DNA-looping, we designed a Ptrc-derived promoter library consisting of single lacO promoters, including a version of Ptrc with a stronger lacO (Ptrc1O-proximal), and dual lacO promoters with varying inter-lacO distances (the Ptrc2O-library).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 182 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 27%
Researcher 36 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 31%
Engineering 15 8%
Chemical Engineering 9 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 28 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,353,194
of 24,397,980 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Engineering
#66
of 289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,228
of 317,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Engineering
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 317,424 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.