↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary Analysis of Functional Divergence among Chemokine Receptors, Decoy Receptors, and Viral Receptors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Evolutionary Analysis of Functional Divergence among Chemokine Receptors, Decoy Receptors, and Viral Receptors
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiromi Daiyasu, Wataru Nemoto, Hiroyuki Toh

Abstract

Chemokine receptors (CKRs) function in the inflammatory response and in vertebrate homeostasis. Decoy and viral receptors are two types of CKR homologs with modified functions from those of the typical CKRs. The decoy receptors are able to bind ligands without signaling. On the other hand, the viral receptors show constitutive signaling without ligands. We examined the sites related to the functional difference. At first, the decoy and viral receptors were each classified into five groups, based on the molecular phylogenetic analysis. A multiple amino acid sequence alignment between each group and the CKRs was then constructed. The difference in the amino acid composition between the group and the CKRs was evaluated as the Kullback-Leibler (KL) information value at each alignment site. The KL information value is considered to reflect the difference in the functional constraints at the site. The sites with the top 5% of KL information values were selected and mapped on the structure of a CKR. The comparisons with decoy receptor groups revealed that the detected sites were biased on the intracellular side. In contrast, the sites detected from the comparisons with viral receptor groups were found on both the extracellular and intracellular sides. More sites were found in the ligand binding pocket in the analyses of the viral receptor groups, as compared to the decoy receptor groups. Some of the detected sites were located in the GPCR motifs. For example, the DRY motif of the decoy receptors was often degraded, although the motif of the viral receptors was basically conserved. The observations for the viral receptor groups suggested that the constraints in the pocket region are loose and that the sites on the intracellular side are different from those for the decoy receptors, which may be related to the constitutive signaling activity of the viral receptors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 19%
Chemistry 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
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 26 July 2012.
All research outputs
#19,165,235
of 23,750,517 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#20,589
of 26,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,631
of 248,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#201
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,750,517 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 26,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 248,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.