↓ Skip to main content

Determining Biophysical Protein Stability in Lysates by a Fast Proteolysis Assay, FASTpp

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
26 Wikipedia pages
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Determining Biophysical Protein Stability in Lysates by a Fast Proteolysis Assay, FASTpp
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046147
Pubmed ID
Authors

David P. Minde, Madelon M. Maurice, Stefan G. D. Rüdiger

Abstract

The biophysical stability is an important parameter for protein activity both in vivo and in vitro. Here we propose a method to analyse thermal melting of protein domains in lysates: Fast parallel proteolysis (FASTpp). Combining unfolding by a temperature gradient in a thermal cycler with simultaneous proteolytic cleavage of the unfolded state, we probed stability of single domains in lysates. We validated FASTpp on proteins from 10 kDa to 240 kDa and monitored stabilisation and coupled folding and binding upon interaction with small-molecule ligands. Within a total reaction time of approximately 1 min, we probed subtle stability differences of point mutations with high sensitivity and in agreement with data obtained by intrinsic protein fluorescence. We anticipate a wide range of applications of FASTpp in biomedicine and protein engineering as it requires only standard laboratory equipment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 116 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 24%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Other 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 30%
Chemistry 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 11 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#5,748,110
of 23,524,722 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#73,546
of 201,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,593
of 173,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,126
of 4,536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,524,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201,552 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 173,854 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 4,536 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 74% of its contemporaries.