↓ Skip to main content

The role of aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase in bacillamide C biosynthesis by Bacillus atrophaeus C89

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, April 2013
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
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
The role of aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase in bacillamide C biosynthesis by Bacillus atrophaeus C89
Published in
Scientific Reports, April 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep01753
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lei Yuwen, Feng-Li Zhang, Qi-Hua Chen, Shuang-Jun Lin, Yi-Lei Zhao, Zhi-Yong Li

Abstract

For biosynthesis of bacillamide C by Bacillus atrophaeus C89 associated with South China sea sponge Dysidea avara, it is hypothesized that decarboxylation from L-tryptophan to tryptamine could be performed before amidation by the downstream aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) to the non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS) gene cluster for biosynthesizing bacillamide C. The structural analysis of decarboxylases' known substrates in KEGG database and alignment analysis of amino acid sequence of AADC have suggested that L-tryptophan and L-phenylalanine are the potential substrates of AADC. The enzymatic kinetic experiment of the recombinant AADC proved that L-tryptophan is a more reactive substrate of AADC than L-phenylalanine. Meanwhile, the AADC-catalyzed conversion of L-tryptophan into tryptamine was confirmed by means of HPLC and LC/MS. Thus during bacillamide C biosynthesis, the decarboxylation of L-tryptophan to tryptamine is likely conducted first under AADC catalysis, followed by the amidation of tryptamine with the carboxylic product of NRPS gene cluster.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 26%
Chemistry 5 13%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 4 10%
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 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,106,568
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#66,431
of 122,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,837
of 192,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#282
of 453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 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 122,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 192,344 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 453 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.