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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Magnetization of active inclusion bodies: comparison with centrifugation in repetitive biotransformations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Microbial Cell Factories, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12934-018-0987-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Romana Koszagova, Tomas Krajcovic, Klaudia Palencarova-Talafova, Vladimir Patoprsty, Alica Vikartovska, Kristyna Pospiskova, Ivo Safarik, Jozef Nahalka |
| Abstract |
Physiological aggregation of a recombinant enzyme into enzymatically active inclusion bodies could be an excellent strategy to obtain immobilized enzymes for industrial biotransformation processes. However, it is not convenient to recycle "gelatinous masses" of protein inclusion bodies from one reaction cycle to another, as high centrifugation forces are needed in large volumes. The magnetization of inclusion bodies is a smart solution for large-scale applications, enabling an easier separation process using a magnetic field. Magnetically modified inclusion bodies of UDP-glucose pyrophosphorylase were recycled 50 times, in comparison, inclusion bodies of the same enzyme were inactivated during ten reaction cycles if they were recycled by centrifugation. Inclusion bodies of sialic acid aldolase also showed good performance and operational stability after the magnetization procedure. It is demonstrated here that inclusion bodies can be easily magnetically modified by magnetic iron oxide particles prepared by microwave-assisted synthesis from ferrous sulphate. The magnetic particles stabilize the repetitive use of the inclusion bodies . |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,532,290
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Microbial Cell Factories
#1,379
of 1,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,299
of 335,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbial Cell Factories
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 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 1,618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. 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 335,675 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 32 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.