↓ Skip to main content

GroEL actively stimulates folding of the endogenous substrate protein PepQ

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
GroEL actively stimulates folding of the endogenous substrate protein PepQ
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15934
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy Weaver, Mengqiu Jiang, Andrew Roth, Jason Puchalla, Junjie Zhang, Hays S. Rye

Abstract

Many essential proteins cannot fold without help from chaperonins, like the GroELS system of Escherichia coli. How chaperonins accelerate protein folding remains controversial. Here we test key predictions of both passive and active models of GroELS-stimulated folding, using the endogenous E. coli metalloprotease PepQ. While GroELS increases the folding rate of PepQ by over 15-fold, we demonstrate that slow spontaneous folding of PepQ is not caused by aggregation. Fluorescence measurements suggest that, when folding inside the GroEL-GroES cavity, PepQ populates conformations not observed during spontaneous folding in free solution. Using cryo-electron microscopy, we show that the GroEL C-termini make physical contact with the PepQ folding intermediate and help retain it deep within the GroEL cavity, resulting in reduced compactness of the PepQ monomer. Our findings strongly support an active model of chaperonin-mediated protein folding, where partial unfolding of misfolded intermediates plays a key role.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Chemistry 6 9%
Physics and Astronomy 3 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 28%
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 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,558,284
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#44,419
of 47,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,664
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#969
of 1,023 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 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 47,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 314,551 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 1,023 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.