↓ Skip to main content

Predicted transmembrane proteins with homology to Mef(A) are not responsible for complementing mef(A) deletion in the mef(A)–msr(D) macrolide efflux system in Streptococcus pneumoniae

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, November 2021
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 (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Predicted transmembrane proteins with homology to Mef(A) are not responsible for complementing mef(A) deletion in the mef(A)–msr(D) macrolide efflux system in Streptococcus pneumoniae
Published in
BMC Research Notes, November 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13104-021-05856-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valeria Fox, Francesco Santoro, Gianni Pozzi, Francesco Iannelli

Abstract

In streptococci, the type M resistance to macrolides is due to the mef(A)-msr(D) efflux transport system of the ATP-Binding cassette (ABC) superfamily, where it is proposed that mef(A) codes for the transmembrane channel and msr(D) for the two ATP-binding domains. Phage ϕ1207.3 of Streptococcus pyogenes, carrying the mef(A)-msr(D) gene pair, is able to transfer the macrolide efflux phenotype to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Deletion of mef(A) in pneumococcal ϕ1207.3-carrying strains did not affect erythromycin efflux. In order to identify candidate genes likely involved in complementation of mef(A) deletion, the Mef(A) amino acid sequence was used as probe for database searching. In silico analysis identified 3 putative candidates in the S. pneumoniae R6 genome, namely spr0971, spr1023 and spr1932. Isogenic deletion mutants of each candidate gene were constructed and used in erythromycin sensitivity assays to investigate their contribution to mef(A) complementation. Since no change in erythromycin sensitivity was observed compared to the parental strain, we produced double and triple mutants to assess the potential synergic activity of the selected genes. Also these mutants did not complement the mef(A) function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 6 75%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Unknown 6 75%
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 November 2021.
All research outputs
#14,555,398
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,989
of 4,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,486
of 510,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#21
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 510,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 59% of its contemporaries.