↓ Skip to main content

NAD+-dependent HDAC inhibitor stimulates Monascus pigment production but inhibit citrinin

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
NAD+-dependent HDAC inhibitor stimulates Monascus pigment production but inhibit citrinin
Published in
AMB Express, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13568-017-0467-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Hu, Youxiang Zhou, Zejing Mao, Huihui Li, Fusheng Chen, Yanchun Shao

Abstract

Monascus species are edible fungi due to the production of food colorant and other beneficial compounds. Hence, it has been an attractive thesis to improve their productivities. Increasing numbers of investigations revealed that regulating the activities of histone deacetylases can significantly perturb secondary metabolites (SM) production at a global level. In this study, dihydrocoumarin (DHC, an inhibitor of the Sirtuin family of NAD(+)-dependent deacetylases) was used to treat Monascus ruber for evaluating its effects on organism growth and SM production. The results revealed that the variation trends of colonial sizes, biomass and mycotoxin were in a dose-dependent manner. Generally, they decreased with the increased DHC concentrations in the designed range. But the variation trend of pigment was different. Comparison of SM profile, three new peaks occurred to the mycelia extractions from DHC-treated strain corresponding to molecular weights 402, 416 and 444, respectively. These three compounds were identified as Monasfluol B, Monascus azaphilone C and acetyl-monasfluol B (a new Monascus chemical pigment structure). In short, DHC can stimulate M. ruber strain to produce more pigment-like polyketides but inhibition of mycotoxin (citrinin).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 29%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Chemistry 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,913,495
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#738
of 1,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,652
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#39
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,239 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.