↓ Skip to main content

Autophagy in Negative-Strand RNA Virus Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Autophagy in Negative-Strand RNA Virus Infection
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yupeng Wang, Ke Jiang, Quan Zhang, Songshu Meng, Chan Ding

Abstract

Autophagy is a homoeostatic process by which cytoplasmic material is targeted for degradation by the cell. Viruses have learned to manipulate the autophagic pathway to ensure their own replication and survival. Although much progress has been achieved in dissecting the interplay between viruses and cellular autophagic machinery, it is not well understood how the cellular autophagic pathway is utilized by viruses and manipulated to their own advantage. In this review, we briefly introduce autophagy, viral xenophagy and the interaction among autophagy, virus and immune response, then focus on the interplay between NS-RNA viruses and autophagy during virus infection. We have selected some exemplary NS-RNA viruses and will describe how these NS-RNA viruses regulate autophagy and the role of autophagy in NS-RNA viral replication and in immune responses to virus infection. We also review recent advances in understanding how NS-RNA viral proteins perturb autophagy and how autophagy-related proteins contribute to NS-RNA virus replication, pathogenesis and antiviral immunity.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 11 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 32%
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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,600,232
of 23,039,416 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#19,598
of 25,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,989
of 446,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#458
of 558 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,039,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 446,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 558 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.