↓ Skip to main content

Ubiquitin initiates sorting of Golgi and plasma membrane proteins into the vacuolar degradation pathway

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, September 2012
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
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Ubiquitin initiates sorting of Golgi and plasma membrane proteins into the vacuolar degradation pathway
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2229-12-164
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Scheuring, Fabian Künzl, Corrado Viotti, Melody SanWan Yan, Liwen Jiang, Swen Schellmann, David G Robinson, Peter Pimpl

Abstract

In yeast and mammals, many plasma membrane (PM) proteins destined for degradation are tagged with ubiquitin. These ubiquitinated proteins are internalized into clathrin-coated vesicles and are transported to early endosomal compartments. There, ubiquitinated proteins are sorted by the endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery into the intraluminal vesicles of multivesicular endosomes. Degradation of these proteins occurs after endosomes fuse with lysosomes/lytic vacuoles to release their content into the lumen. In plants, some PM proteins, which cycle between the PM and endosomal compartments, have been found to be ubiquitinated, but it is unclear whether ubiquitin is sufficient to mediate internalization and thus acts as a primary sorting signal for the endocytic pathway. To test whether plants use ubiquitin as a signal for the degradation of membrane proteins, we have translationally fused ubiquitin to different fluorescent reporters for the plasma membrane and analyzed their transport.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 37%
Researcher 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 9 10%

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 13 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,785,427
of 12,410,450 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#763
of 1,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,896
of 125,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,410,450 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,566 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 125,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.