↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Identification of Intracellular-Translocated Candidate Effectors in Edwardsiella piscicida

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Systematic Identification of Intracellular-Translocated Candidate Effectors in Edwardsiella piscicida
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lingzhi Zhang, Zhiwei Jiang, Shan Fang, Yajun Huang, Dahai Yang, Qiyao Wang, Yuanxing Zhang, Qin Liu

Abstract

Many bacterial pathogens inject effectors directly into host cells to target a variety of host cellular processes and promote bacterial dissemination and survival. Identifying the bacterial effectors and elucidating their functions are central to understanding the molecular pathogenesis of these pathogens.Edwardsiella piscicidais a pathogen with a wide host range, and very few of its effectors have been identified to date. Here, based on the genes significantly regulated by macrophage infection, we identified 25 intracellular translocation-positive candidate effectors, including all five previously reported effectors, namely EseG, EseJ, EseH, EseK, and EvpP. A subsequent secretion analysis revealed diverse secretion patterns for the 25 effector candidates, suggesting that multiple transport pathways were involved in the internalization of these candidate effectors. Further, we identified two novel type VI secretion system (T6SS) putative effectors and three outer membrane vesicles (OMV)-dependent putative effectors among the candidate effectors described above, and further analyzed their contribution to bacterial virulence in a zebrafish model. This work demonstrates an effective approach for screening bacterial effectors and expands the effectors repertoire inE. piscicida.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 45%
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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#6,071
of 6,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,959
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#94
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.