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 |
Using synthetic bacterial enhancers to reveal a looping-based mechanism for quenching-like repression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms10407 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michal Brunwasser-Meirom, Yaroslav Pollak, Sarah Goldberg, Lior Levy, Orna Atar, Roee Amit |
| Abstract |
We explore a model for 'quenching-like' repression by studying synthetic bacterial enhancers, each characterized by a different binding site architecture. To do so, we take a three-pronged approach: first, we compute the probability that a protein-bound dsDNA molecule will loop. Second, we use hundreds of synthetic enhancers to test the model's predictions in bacteria. Finally, we verify the mechanism bioinformatically in native genomes. Here we show that excluded volume effects generated by DNA-bound proteins can generate substantial quenching. Moreover, the type and extent of the regulatory effect depend strongly on the relative arrangement of the binding sites. The implications of these results are that enhancers should be insensitive to 10-11 bp insertions or deletions (INDELs) and sensitive to 5-6 bp INDELs. We test this prediction on 61 σ(54)-regulated qrr genes from the Vibrio genus and confirm the tolerance of these enhancers' sequences to the DNA's helical repeat. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 29% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 33% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,381,240
of 25,692,343 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#44,630
of 58,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,932
of 407,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#540
of 752 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,692,343 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 407,652 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 752 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.