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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Identifying N-linked glycan moiety and motifs in the cysteine-rich domain critical for N-glycosylation and intracellular trafficking of SR-AI and MARCO
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Science, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12929-016-0244-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Huey-Jen Tsay, Yung-Cheng Huang, Yi-Jen Chen, Yun-Hao Lee, Shu-Meng Hsu, Keng-Chang Tsai, Cheng-Ning Yang, Fong-Lee Huang, Feng-Shiun Shie, Lin-Chien Lee, Young-Ji Shiao |
| Abstract |
The accumulation of soluble oligomeric amyloid-β peptide (oAβ) proceeding the formation of senile plaques contributes to synaptic and memory deficits in Alzheimer's disease. Our previous studies have indentified scavenger receptor A (SR-A), especially SR-A type I (SR-AI), as prominent scavenger receptors on mediating oAβ clearance by microglia while glycan moiety and scavenger receptor cysteine-rich (SRCR) domain may play the critical role. Macrophage receptor with collagenous structure (MARCO), another member of class A superfamily with a highly conserved SRCR domain, may also play the similar role on oAβ internalization. However, the role of N-glycosylation and SRCR domain of SR-AI and MARCO on oAβ internalization remains unclear. We found that oAβ internalization was diminished in the cells expressing SR-AI harboring mutations of dual N-glycosylation sites (i.e. N120Q-N143Q and N143Q-N184Q) while they were normally surface targeted. Normal oAβ internalization was observed in 10 SR-AI-SRCR and 4 MARCO-SRCR surface targeted mutants. Alternatively, the SRCR mutants at β-sheet and α-helix and on disulfide bone formation obstructed receptor's N-glycosylation and surface targeting. Our study reveals that N-glycan moiety is more critical than SRCR domain for SR-A-mediated oAβ internalization. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 40% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 27% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#196
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,363
of 312,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 312,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.