↓ Skip to main content

Structural mechanisms of human RecQ helicases WRN and BLM

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Structural mechanisms of human RecQ helicases WRN and BLM
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ken Kitano

Abstract

The RecQ family DNA helicases Werner syndrome protein (WRN) and Bloom syndrome protein (BLM) play a key role in protecting the genome against deleterious changes. In humans, mutations in these proteins lead to rare genetic diseases associated with cancer predisposition and accelerated aging. WRN and BLM are distinguished from other helicases by possessing signature tandem domains toward the C terminus, referred to as the RecQ C-terminal (RQC) and helicase-and-ribonuclease D-C-terminal (HRDC) domains. Although the precise function of the HRDC domain remains unclear, the previous crystal structure of a WRN RQC-DNA complex visualized a central role for the RQC domain in recognizing, binding and unwinding DNA at branch points. In particular, a prominent hairpin structure (the β-wing) within the RQC winged-helix motif acts as a scalpel to induce the unpairing of a Watson-Crick base pair at the DNA duplex terminus. A similar RQC-DNA interaction was also observed in the recent crystal structure of a BLM-DNA complex. I review the latest structures of WRN and BLM, and then provide a docking simulation of BLM with a Holliday junction. The model offers an explanation for the efficient branch migration activity of the RecQ family toward recombination and repair intermediates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 149 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 22%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 11 7%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 35 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 17%
Chemistry 11 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 37 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,381,794
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,015
of 11,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,488
of 260,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#87
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 260,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.