↓ Skip to main content

How scaffolds shape MAPK signaling: what we know and opportunities for systems approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
How scaffolds shape MAPK signaling: what we know and opportunities for systems approaches
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2012.00475
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franziska Witzel, Louise Maddison, Nils Blüthgen

Abstract

Scaffolding proteins add a new layer of complexity to the dynamics of cell signaling. Above their basic function to bring several components of a signaling pathway together, recent experimental research has found that scaffolds influence signaling in a much more complex way: scaffolds can exert some catalytic function, influence signaling by allosteric mechanisms, are feedback-regulated, localize signaling activity to distinct regions of the cell or increase pathway fidelity. Here we review experimental and theoretical approaches that address the function of two MAPK scaffolds, Ste5, a scaffold of the yeast mating pathway and KSR1/2, a scaffold of the classical mammalian MAPK signaling pathway. For the yeast scaffold Ste5, detailed mechanistic models have been valuable for the understanding of its function. For scaffolds in mammalian signaling, however, models have been rather generic and sketchy. For example, these models predicted narrow optimal scaffold concentrations, but when revisiting these models by assuming typical concentrations, rather a range of scaffold levels optimally supports signaling. Thus, more realistic models are needed to understand the role of scaffolds in mammalian signal transduction, which opens a big opportunity for systems biology.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 164 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 29%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Master 16 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 6%
Chemistry 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 23 13%
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 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,740,534
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,630
of 13,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,269
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 244,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 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 51% of its contemporaries.