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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Conserved Omp85 lid-lock structure and substrate recognition in FhaC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms8452 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timm Maier, Bernard Clantin, Fabian Gruss, Frédérique Dewitte, Anne-Sophie Delattre, Françoise Jacob-Dubuisson, Sebastian Hiller, Vincent Villeret |
| Abstract |
Omp85 proteins mediate translocation of polypeptide substrates across and into cellular membranes. They share a common architecture comprising substrate-interacting POTRA domains, a C-terminal 16-stranded β-barrel pore and two signature motifs located on the inner barrel wall and at the tip of the extended L6 loop. The observation of two distinct conformations of the L6 loop in the available Omp85 structures previously suggested a functional role of conformational changes in L6 in the Omp85 mechanism. Here we present a 2.5 Å resolution structure of a variant of the Omp85 secretion protein FhaC, in which the two signature motifs interact tightly and form the conserved 'lid lock'. Reanalysis of previous structural data shows that L6 adopts the same, conserved resting state position in all available Omp85 structures. The FhaC variant structure further reveals a competitive mechanism for the regulation of substrate binding mediated by the linker to the N-terminal plug helix H1. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 25% |
| Researcher | 15 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 32% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#583,731
of 24,715,720 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#10,082
of 53,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,688
of 271,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#96
of 771 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,715,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 271,575 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 771 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.