↓ Skip to main content

Uptake and Trafficking of Protein Toxins

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 17: Receptors and Binding Structures for Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Receptors and Binding Structures for Clostridium difficile Toxins A and B
Chapter number 17
Book title
Uptake and Trafficking of Protein Toxins
Published in
Current topics in microbiology and immunology, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/82_2016_17
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-958891-9, 978-3-31-958893-3
Authors

Gerhard, Ralf, Ralf Gerhard

Abstract

Two characteristics of toxins A and B from C. difficile (TcdA, TcdB) are important for the understanding of the pathogenic effect of these homologous toxins. First, these toxins are huge single-chain but multidomain proteins that display their action intracellularly within the cytosol of host cells. And second, albeit various cell types highly differ in their sensitivity toward these toxins, no toxin-resistant cell type has been described yet. Investigation of receptor-mediated uptake of these toxins is very ambitious. It demands discrimination between cell surface binding, interaction with more than one functional receptor responsible for uptake as well as other functional receptors that recognize bacterial pathogens and are not necessarily related with endocytosis. The current understanding of a complex uptake process is that TcdB interacts with at least two facultative receptors that mediate entry into host cells by redundant endocytotic pathways. Although both homologous toxins do obviously not share the same receptors, this principle of redundant binding domains found for TcdB does also account for TcdA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,856,861
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Current topics in microbiology and immunology
#418
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,180
of 355,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current topics in microbiology and immunology
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 355,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.