↓ Skip to main content

VP2 of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Induces Apoptosis via Triggering Oral Cancer Overexpressed 1 (ORAOV1) Protein Degradation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
VP2 of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus Induces Apoptosis via Triggering Oral Cancer Overexpressed 1 (ORAOV1) Protein Degradation
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01351
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yao Qin, Zhichao Xu, Yongqiang Wang, Xiaoqi Li, Hong Cao, Shijun J. Zheng

Abstract

Infectious bursal disease (IBD) is an acute, highly contagious and immunosuppressive avian disease caused by IBD virus (IBDV). Cell apoptosis triggered by IBDV contributes to the dysfunction of immune system in host. VP2 of IBDV is known to induce cell death but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Here we demonstrate that VP2 interacts with the oral cancer overexpressed 1 (ORAOV1), a potential oncoprotein. Infection by IBDV or ectopic expression of VP2 causes a reduction of cellular ORAOV1 and induction of apoptosis, so does knockdown of ORAOV1. In contrast, over-expression of ORAOV1 leads to the inhibition of VP2- or IBDV-induced apoptosis, accompanied with the decreased viral release (p < 0.05). Thus, VP2-induced apoptosis during IBDV infection is mediated by interacting with and reducing ORAOV1, a protein that appears to act as an antiapoptotic molecule and restricts viral release early during IBDV infection.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Chemistry 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,446,570
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#8,149
of 24,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,749
of 314,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#261
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 314,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.