↓ Skip to main content

Why are Functional Amyloids Non-Toxic in Humans?

Overview of attention for article published in Biomolecules, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
Why are Functional Amyloids Non-Toxic in Humans?
Published in
Biomolecules, September 2017
DOI 10.3390/biom7040071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew P Jackson, Eric W Hewitt

Abstract

Amyloids were first identified in association with amyloidoses, human diseases in which proteins and peptides misfold into amyloid fibrils. Subsequent studies have identified an array of functional amyloid fibrils that perform physiological roles in humans. Given the potential for the production of toxic species in amyloid assembly reactions, it is remarkable that cells can produce these functional amyloids without suffering any obvious ill effect. Although the precise mechanisms are unclear, there are a number of ways in which amyloid toxicity may be prevented. These include regulating the level of the amyloidogenic peptides and proteins, minimising the production of prefibrillar oligomers in amyloid assembly reactions, sequestrating amyloids within membrane bound organelles, controlling amyloid assembly by other molecules, and disassembling the fibrils under physiological conditions. Crucially, a better understanding of how toxicity is avoided in the production of functional amyloids may provide insights into the prevention of amyloid toxicity in amyloidoses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 19%
Student > Bachelor 34 16%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 59 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 68 32%
Chemistry 21 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 8%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 68 32%
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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,694,091
of 25,210,618 outputs
Outputs from Biomolecules
#1,315
of 5,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,185
of 324,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomolecules
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,210,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 324,654 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.