↓ Skip to main content

Identification of protein N-termini in Cyanophora paradoxa cyanelles: transit peptide composition and sequence determinants for precursor maturation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Identification of protein N-termini in Cyanophora paradoxa cyanelles: transit peptide composition and sequence determinants for precursor maturation
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00559
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Köhler, Dirk Dobritzsch, Wolfgang Hoehenwarter, Stefan Helm, Jürgen M. Steiner, Sacha Baginsky

Abstract

Glaucophyta, rhodophyta, and chloroplastida represent the three main evolutionary lineages that diverged from a common ancestor after primary endosymbiosis. Comparative analyses between members of these three lineages are a rich source of information on ancestral plastid features. We analyzed the composition and the cleavage site of cyanelle transit peptides from the glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa by terminal amine labeling of substrates (TAILS), and compared their characteristics to those of representatives of the chloroplastida. Our data show that transit peptide architecture is similar between members of these two lineages. This entails a comparable modular structure, an overrepresentation of serine or alanine and similarities in the amino acid composition around the processing peptidase cleavage site. The most distinctive difference is the overrepresentation of phenylalanine in the N-terminal 1-10 amino acids of cyanelle transit peptides. A quantitative proteome analysis with periplasm-free cyanelles identified 42 out of 262 proteins without the N-terminal phenylalanine, suggesting that the requirement for phenylalanine in the N-terminal region is not absolute. Proteins in this set are on average of low abundance, suggesting that either alternative import pathways are operating specifically for low abundance proteins or that the gene model annotation is incorrect for proteins with fewer EST sequences. We discuss these two possibilities and provide examples for both interpretations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 27%
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 18%
Engineering 2 9%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%
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 22 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,283,046
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,009
of 20,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,509
of 263,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#199
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.