↓ Skip to main content

Simulations suggest a constrictive force is required for Gram-negative bacterial cell division

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Simulations suggest a constrictive force is required for Gram-negative bacterial cell division
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2019
DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-09264-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lam T. Nguyen, Catherine M. Oikonomou, H. Jane Ding, Mohammed Kaplan, Qing Yao, Yi-Wei Chang, Morgan Beeby, Grant J. Jensen

Abstract

To divide, Gram-negative bacterial cells must remodel cell wall at the division site. It remains debated, however, whether this cell wall remodeling alone can drive membrane constriction, or if a constrictive force from the tubulin homolog FtsZ is required. Previously, we constructed software (REMODELER 1) to simulate cell wall remodeling during growth. Here, we expanded this software to explore cell wall division (REMODELER 2). We found that simply organizing cell wall synthesis complexes at the midcell is not sufficient to cause invagination, even with the implementation of a make-before-break mechanism, in which new hoops of cell wall are made inside the existing hoops before bonds are cleaved. Division can occur, however, when a constrictive force brings the midcell into a compressed state before new hoops of relaxed cell wall are incorporated between existing hoops. Adding a make-before-break mechanism drives division with a smaller constrictive force sufficient to bring the midcell into a relaxed, but not necessarily compressed, state.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 23%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#978,993
of 25,755,403 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#16,001
of 58,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,517
of 365,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#431
of 1,420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,755,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 365,629 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,420 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.