↓ Skip to main content

Biosynthesis of helvolic acid and identification of an unusual C-4-demethylation process distinct from sterol biosynthesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
9 tweeters
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Biosynthesis of helvolic acid and identification of an unusual C-4-demethylation process distinct from sterol biosynthesis
Published in
Nature Communications, November 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41467-017-01813-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian-Ming Lv, Dan Hu, Hao Gao, Tetsuo Kushiro, Takayoshi Awakawa, Guo-Dong Chen, Chuan-Xi Wang, Ikuro Abe, Xin-Sheng Yao

Abstract

Fusidane-type antibiotics represented by helvolic acid, fusidic acid and cephalosporin P1 are a class of bacteriostatic agents, which have drawn renewed attention because they have no cross-resistance to commonly used antibiotics. However, their biosynthesis is poorly understood. Here, we perform a stepwise introduction of the nine genes from the proposed gene cluster for helvolic acid into Aspergillus oryzae NSAR1, which enables us to isolate helvolic acid (~20 mg L(-1)) and its 21 derivatives. Anti-Staphylococcus aureus assay reveals that the antibacterial activity of three intermediates is even stronger than that of helvolic acid. Notably, we observe an unusual C-4 demethylation process mediated by a promiscuous short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase (HelC) and a cytochrome P450 enzyme (HelB1), which is distinct from the common sterol biosynthesis. These studies have set the stage for using biosynthetic approaches to expand chemical diversity of fusidane-type antibiotics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 7 24%
Unspecified 6 21%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 8 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 21%
Unspecified 6 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 21%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#417,518
of 13,153,703 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#6,842
of 23,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,504
of 386,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#619
of 1,861 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,153,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 386,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,861 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.