↓ Skip to main content

Chemical Genomics and Proteomics

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 12: Resolving bottlenecks for recombinant protein expression in E. coli.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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.
Chapter title
Resolving bottlenecks for recombinant protein expression in E. coli.
Chapter number 12
Book title
Chemical Genomics and Proteomics
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-349-3_12
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-61779-348-6, 978-1-61779-349-3
Authors

Peleg Y, Unger T, Yoav Peleg, Tamar Unger

Abstract

Escherichia coli is widely used as an expression system for production of recombinant proteins of prokaryotic and eukaryotic origin. A large body of knowledge has accumulated throughout the last few decades regarding expression of recombinant proteins in E. coli. However, despite this progress, protein production, primarily of eukaryotic origin, still remains a challenge. The biggest obstacle lies in obtaining large amounts of a given protein in a correctly folded form. Several strategies are being used to increase both yield and solubility. These include expression as fusion proteins, co-expression with molecular chaperones, or with a protein partner(s), and the use of multiple constructs for each protein. In this chapter, we focus on strategies for creating expression vectors, as well as on guidelines for improving recombinant protein solubility.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 30%
Chemistry 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 10 21%
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 07 September 2012.
All research outputs
#17,665,425
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,145
of 13,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,595
of 132,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#22
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 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 13,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 132,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 53% of its contemporaries.