↓ Skip to main content

Biological insertion of computationally designed short transmembrane segments

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, March 2016
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Biological insertion of computationally designed short transmembrane segments
Published in
Scientific Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep23397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Baeza-Delgado, Gunnar von Heijne, Marc A. Marti-Renom, Ismael Mingarro

Abstract

The great majority of helical membrane proteins are inserted co-translationally into the ER membrane through a continuous ribosome-translocon channel. The efficiency of membrane insertion depends on transmembrane (TM) helix amino acid composition, the helix length and the position of the amino acids within the helix. In this work, we conducted a computational analysis of the composition and location of amino acids in transmembrane helices found in membrane proteins of known structure to obtain an extensive set of designed polypeptide segments with naturally occurring amino acid distributions. Then, using an in vitro translation system in the presence of biological membranes, we experimentally validated our predictions by analyzing its membrane integration capacity. Coupled with known strategies to control membrane protein topology, these findings may pave the way to de novo membrane protein design.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 32%
Engineering 2 5%
Chemistry 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#447,147
of 11,265,326 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#4,754
of 48,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,712
of 289,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#331
of 3,086 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,265,326 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 48,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 289,302 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 3,086 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.