| Title |
How do our cells build their protein interactome?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41467-018-05448-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benoit Coulombe, Philippe Cloutier, Marie-Soleil Gauthier |
| Abstract |
Chaperones are cellular factors that help in the folding of newly synthesized polypeptides (or clients) and, in some cases, ensure their integration within larger complexes. They often require non-client proteins, or co-chaperones, to help drive specificity to particular target polypeptides or facilitate the nucleotide hydrolysis cycle of some chaperones. The latest findings on the characterization of the PAQosome (Particle for Arrangement of Quaternary structure; formerly known as R2TP/PFDL complex) published recently in Nature Communications help to explain how this particular co-chaperone plays a central role in organizing our proteome into protein complexes and networks. The exploitation by the cell of alternative PAQosomes formed through the differential integration of homologous subunits, in conjunction with the use of several adaptors (specificity factors), provide the conceptual basis for interaction of multiple clients in a structure that is favorable to their simultaneous binding en route to protein complex and network assembly/maturation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 14% |
| Canada | 3 | 10% |
| Argentina | 2 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Guadeloupe | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 66% |
| Scientists | 7 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 02 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,975,227
of 25,028,065 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#25,467
of 55,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,699
of 336,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#658
of 1,317 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,028,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 336,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,317 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.