↓ Skip to main content

Cdt1 stabilizes an open MCM ring for helicase loading

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Cdt1 stabilizes an open MCM ring for helicase loading
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms15720
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordi Frigola, Jun He, Kerstin Kinkelin, Valerie E. Pye, Ludovic Renault, Max E. Douglas, Dirk Remus, Peter Cherepanov, Alessandro Costa, John F. X. Diffley

Abstract

ORC, Cdc6 and Cdt1 act together to load hexameric MCM, the motor of the eukaryotic replicative helicase, into double hexamers at replication origins. Here we show that Cdt1 interacts with MCM subunits Mcm2, 4 and 6, which both destabilizes the Mcm2-5 interface and inhibits MCM ATPase activity. Using X-ray crystallography, we show that Cdt1 contains two winged-helix domains in the C-terminal half of the protein and a catalytically inactive dioxygenase-related N-terminal domain, which is important for MCM loading, but not for subsequent replication. We used these structures together with single-particle electron microscopy to generate three-dimensional models of MCM complexes. These show that Cdt1 stabilizes MCM in a left-handed spiral open at the Mcm2-5 gate. We propose that Cdt1 acts as a brace, holding MCM open for DNA entry and bound to ATP until ORC-Cdc6 triggers ATP hydrolysis by MCM, promoting both Cdt1 ejection and MCM ring closure.

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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 35%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Chemistry 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 January 2022.
All research outputs
#6,961,889
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#35,836
of 47,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,330
of 315,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#844
of 1,085 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 315,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,085 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.