↓ Skip to main content

The role of autophagy in intracellular pathogen nutrient acquisition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
The role of autophagy in intracellular pathogen nutrient acquisition
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2015.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaun Steele, Jason Brunton, Thomas Kawula

Abstract

Following entry into host cells intracellular pathogens must simultaneously evade innate host defense mechanisms and acquire energy and anabolic substrates from the nutrient-limited intracellular environment. Most of the potential intracellular nutrient sources are stored within complex macromolecules that are not immediately accessible by intracellular pathogens. To obtain nutrients for proliferation, intracellular pathogens must compete with the host cell for newly-imported simple nutrients or degrade host nutrient storage structures into their constituent components (fatty acids, carbohydrates, and amino acids). It is becoming increasingly evident that intracellular pathogens have evolved a wide variety of strategies to accomplish this task. One recurrent microbial strategy is to exploit host degradative processes that break down host macromolecules into simple nutrients that the microbe can use. Herein we focus on how a subset of bacterial, viral, and eukaryotic pathogens leverage the host process of autophagy to acquire nutrients that support their growth within infected cells.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 10 11%
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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#5,134
of 8,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,904
of 280,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 280,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.