↓ Skip to main content

Can the Natural Diversity of Quorum-Sensing Advance Synthetic Biology?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Can the Natural Diversity of Quorum-Sensing Advance Synthetic Biology?
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

René Michele Davis, Ryan Yue Muller, Karmella Ann Haynes

Abstract

Quorum-sensing networks enable bacteria to sense and respond to chemical signals produced by neighboring bacteria. They are widespread: over 100 morphologically and genetically distinct species of eubacteria are known to use quorum sensing to control gene expression. This diversity suggests the potential to use natural protein variants to engineer parallel, input-specific, cell-cell communication pathways. However, only three distinct signaling pathways, Lux, Las, and Rhl, have been adapted for and broadly used in engineered systems. The paucity of unique quorum-sensing systems and their propensity for crosstalk limits the usefulness of our current quorum-sensing toolkit. This review discusses the need for more signaling pathways, roadblocks to using multiple pathways in parallel, and strategies for expanding the quorum-sensing toolbox for synthetic biology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 153 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 22%
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 25 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 28%
Engineering 13 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Chemistry 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 31 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,645,092
of 24,180,797 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#331
of 7,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,747
of 262,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,180,797 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,649 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 262,963 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.