↓ Skip to main content

Design principles of a microtubule polymerase

Overview of attention for article published in eLife, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Design principles of a microtubule polymerase
Published in
eLife, June 2018
DOI 10.7554/elife.34574
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth A Geyer, Matthew P Miller, Chad A Brautigam, Sue Biggins, Luke M Rice

Abstract

Stu2/XMAP215 microtubule polymerases use multiple tubulin-binding TOG domains and a lattice-binding basic region to processively promote faster elongation. How the domain composition and organization of these proteins dictate polymerase activity, end localization, and processivity is unknown. We show that polymerase activity does not require different kinds of TOGs, nor are there strict requirements for how the TOGs are linked. We identify an unexpected antagonism between the tubulin-binding TOGs and the lattice-binding basic region: lattice binding by the basic region is weak when at least two TOGs engage tubulins, strong when TOGs are empty. End-localization of Stu2 requires unpolymerized tubulin, at least two TOGs, and polymerase competence. We propose a 'ratcheting' model for processivity: transfer of tubulin from TOGs to the lattice activates the basic region, retaining the polymerase at the end for subsequent rounds of tubulin binding and incorporation. These results clarify design principles of the polymerase.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 40%
Researcher 5 14%
Unspecified 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 29%
Unspecified 4 11%
Chemistry 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Other 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,569,343
of 13,133,585 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#5,731
of 6,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,808
of 268,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#312
of 346 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,133,585 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. 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 268,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 346 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.