↓ Skip to main content

Coat/Tether Interactions—Exception or Rule?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Coat/Tether Interactions—Exception or Rule?
Published in
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fcell.2016.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saskia Schroeter, Sabrina Beckmann, Hans Dieter Schmitt

Abstract

Coat complexes are important for cargo selection and vesicle formation. Recent evidence suggests that they may also be involved in vesicle targeting. Tethering factors, which form an initial bridge between vesicles and the target membrane, may bind to coat complexes. In this review, we ask whether these coat/tether interactions share some common mechanisms, or whether they are special adaptations to the needs of very specific transport steps. We compare recent findings in two multisubunit tethering complexes, the Dsl1 complex and the HOPS complex, and put them into context with the TRAPP I complex as a prominent example for coat/tether interactions. We explore where coat/tether interactions are found, compare their function and structure, and comment on a possible evolution from a common ancestor of coats and tethers.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 32%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 15%
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 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#5,214
of 9,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,241
of 328,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
#39
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 9,446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 328,626 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.