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 |
Tulane virus recognizes sialic acids as cellular receptors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep11784 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming Tan, Chao Wei, Pengwei Huang, Qiang Fan, Christina Quigley, Ming Xia, Hao Fang, Xufu Zhang, Weiming Zhong, John S. Klassen, Xi Jiang |
| Abstract |
The recent discovery that human noroviruses (huNoVs) recognize sialic acids (SAs) in addition to histo-blood group antigens (HBGAs) pointed to a new direction in studying virus-host interactions during calicivirus infection. HuNoVs remain difficult to study due to the lack of an effective cell culture model. In this study, we demonstrated that Tulane virus (TV), a cultivable primate calicivirus, also recognizes SAs in addition to the previously known TV-HBGA interactions. Evidence supporting this discovery includes that TV virions bound synthetic sialoglycoconjugates (SGCs) and that treatment of TV permissive LLC-MK2 cells with either neuraminidases or SA-binding lectins inhibited TV infectivity. In addition, we found that Maackia amurensis leukoagglutinin (MAL), a lectin that recognizes the α-2,3 linked SAs, bound LLC-MK2 cells, as well as TV, by which MAL promoted TV infectivity in cell culture. Our findings further highlight TV as a valuable surrogate for huNoVs, particularly in studying virus-host interactions that may involve two host carbohydrate receptors or co-receptors for infection. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 26% |
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 23% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#19,017,658
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#96,971
of 127,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,575
of 263,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,480
of 2,003 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 263,847 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 2,003 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.