↓ Skip to main content

Maize

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 6: Selective Knockdowns in Maize by Sequence-Specific Protein Aggregation
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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.
Chapter title
Selective Knockdowns in Maize by Sequence-Specific Protein Aggregation
Chapter number 6
Book title
Maize
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7315-6_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7314-9, 978-1-4939-7315-6
Authors

Camilla Betti, Joost Schymkowitz, Frederic Rousseau, Eugenia Russinova

Abstract

Protein aggregation is determined by 5-15 amino acids peptides of the target protein sequence, so-called aggregation-prone regions (APRs) that specifically self-associate to form β-structured inclusions. The presence of APRs in a target protein can be predicted by a dedicated algorithm, such as TANGO. Synthetic aggregation-prone proteins are designed by expressing specific APRs fused to a fluorescent carrier for stability and visualization. Previously, the stable expression of these proteins in Zea mays (maize) has been demonstrated to induce aggregation of target proteins with specific localization, such as the starch-degrading enzyme α-glucan water dikinase, giving rise to plants displaying knockdown phenotypes. Here, we describe how to design synthetic aggregation-prone proteins to harness the sequence specificity of APRs to generate aggregation-associated phenotypes in a targeted manner and in different subcellular compartments. This method points toward the application of induced targeted aggregation as a useful tool to knock down protein functions in maize and to generate crops with improved traits.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 40%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Unknown 2 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#5,386
of 13,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,666
of 442,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#596
of 1,498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,159 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 442,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,498 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.