↓ Skip to main content

Transmembrane Helices Are an Overlooked Source of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Epitopes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Transmembrane Helices Are an Overlooked Source of Major Histocompatibility Complex Class I Epitopes
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frans Bianchi, Johannes Textor, Geert van den Bogaart

Abstract

About a fourth of the human proteome is anchored by transmembrane helices (TMHs) to lipid membranes. TMHs require multiple hydrophobic residues for spanning membranes, and this shows a striking resemblance with the requirements for peptide binding to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I. It, therefore, comes as no surprise that bioinformatics analysis predicts an over-representation of TMHs among strong MHC class I (MHC-I) binders. Published peptide elution studies confirm that TMHs are indeed presented by MHC-I. This raises the question how membrane proteins are processed for MHC-I (cross-)presentation, with current research focusing on soluble antigens. The presentation of membrane-buried peptides is likely important in health and disease, as TMHs are considerably conserved and their presentation might prevent escape mutations by pathogens. Therefore, it could contribute to the disease correlations described for many human leukocyte antigen haplotypes.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#15,386
of 31,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,671
of 323,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#274
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 323,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.