↓ Skip to main content

Tulane virus recognizes sialic acids as cellular receptors

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 38%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 24%
Unspecified 3 14%
Chemistry 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%

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 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,967,712
of 9,133,109 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#25,812
of 44,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,932
of 230,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,019
of 1,772 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,133,109 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 44,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 230,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,772 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.