↓ Skip to main content

Entomopathogenic bacteria use multiple mechanisms for bioactive peptide library design

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Chemistry, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Entomopathogenic bacteria use multiple mechanisms for bioactive peptide library design
Published in
Nature Chemistry, December 2016
DOI 10.1038/nchem.2671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaofeng Cai, Sarah Nowak, Frank Wesche, Iris Bischoff, Marcel Kaiser, Robert Fürst, Helge. B. Bode

Abstract

The production of natural product compound libraries has been observed in nature for different organisms such as bacteria, fungi and plants; however, little is known about the mechanisms generating such chemically diverse libraries. Here we report mechanisms leading to the biosynthesis of the chemically diverse rhabdopeptide/xenortide peptides (RXPs). They are exclusively present in entomopathogenic bacteria of the genera Photorhabdus and Xenorhabdus that live in symbiosis with nematodes delivering them to insect prey, which is killed and utilized for nutrition by both nematodes and bacteria. Chemical diversity of the biologically active RXPs results from a combination of iterative and flexible use of monomodular nonribosomal peptide synthetases including substrate promiscuity, enzyme cross-talk and enzyme stoichiometry as shown by in vivo and in vitro experiments. Together, this highlights several of nature's methods for diversification, or evolution, of natural products and sheds light on the biosynthesis of the bioactive RXPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 109 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 32 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#568,402
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from Nature Chemistry
#438
of 3,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,462
of 417,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Chemistry
#9
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 417,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.