↓ Skip to main content

Handling gene and protein names in the age of bioinformatics: the special challenge of secreted multimodular bacterial enzymes such as the cbhA/cbh9A gene of Clostridium thermocellum

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Handling gene and protein names in the age of bioinformatics: the special challenge of secreted multimodular bacterial enzymes such as the cbhA/cbh9A gene of Clostridium thermocellum
Published in
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11274-018-2424-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang H. Schwarz, Roman Brunecky, Jannis Broeker, Wolfgang Liebl, Vladimir V. Zverlov

Abstract

An increasing number of researchers working in biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, bioengineering, bioinformatics and other related fields of science are using biological molecules. As the scientific background of the members of different scientific communities is more diverse than ever before, the number of scientists not familiar with the rules for non-ambiguous designation of genetic elements is increasing. However, with biological molecules gaining importance through biotechnology, their functional and unambiguous designation is vital. Unfortunately, naming genes and proteins is not an easy task. In addition, the traditional concepts of bioinformatics are challenged with the appearance of proteins comprising different modules with a respective function in each module. This article highlights basic rules and novel solutions in designation recently used within the community of bacterial geneticists, and we discuss the present-day handling of gene and protein designations. As an example we will utilize a recent mischaracterization of gene nomenclature. We make suggestions for better handling of names in future literature as well as in databases and annotation projects. Our methodology emphasizes the hydrolytic function of multi-modular genes and extracellular proteins from bacteria.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Researcher 4 27%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 20%
Chemistry 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,129,652
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
#235
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,175
of 333,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
#6
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 333,396 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.