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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Systematic Framework for Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Protein Post-Translational Modifications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003154 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Drazen Petrov, Christian Margreitter, Melanie Grandits, Chris Oostenbrink, Bojan Zagrovic |
| Abstract |
By directly affecting structure, dynamics and interaction networks of their targets, post-translational modifications (PTMs) of proteins play a key role in different cellular processes ranging from enzymatic activation to regulation of signal transduction to cell-cycle control. Despite the great importance of understanding how PTMs affect proteins at the atomistic level, a systematic framework for treating post-translationally modified amino acids by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, a premier high-resolution computational biology tool, has never been developed. Here, we report and validate force field parameters (GROMOS 45a3 and 54a7) required to run and analyze MD simulations of more than 250 different types of enzymatic and non-enzymatic PTMs. The newly developed GROMOS 54a7 parameters in particular exhibit near chemical accuracy in matching experimentally measured hydration free energies (RMSE=4.2 kJ/mol over the validation set). Using this tool, we quantitatively show that the majority of PTMs greatly alter the hydrophobicity and other physico-chemical properties of target amino acids, with the extent of change in many cases being comparable to the complete range spanned by native amino acids. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 30% |
| Researcher | 34 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 33 | 23% |
| Chemistry | 18 | 13% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 November 2020.
All research outputs
#8,572,103
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,649
of 8,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,898
of 208,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#56
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 208,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.