↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic Complexes in the Chaperonin-Mediated Protein Folding Cycle

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 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
Dynamic Complexes in the Chaperonin-Mediated Protein Folding Cycle
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Celeste Weiss, Fady Jebara, Shahar Nisemblat, Abdussalam Azem

Abstract

The GroEL-GroES chaperonin system is probably one of the most studied chaperone systems at the level of the molecular mechanism. Since the first reports of a bacterial gene involved in phage morphogenesis in 1972, these proteins have stimulated intensive research for over 40 years. During this time, detailed structural and functional studies have yielded constantly evolving concepts of the chaperonin mechanism of action. Despite of almost three decades of research on this oligomeric protein, certain aspects of its function remain controversial. In this review, we highlight one central aspect of its function, namely, the active intermediates of its reaction cycle, and present how research to this day continues to change our understanding of chaperonin-mediated protein folding.

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 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 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 > Master 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,286,049
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#1,130
of 3,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,779
of 419,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,821 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 419,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.