↓ Skip to main content

Effect of site-directed mutagenesis at the GGEEF domain of the biofilm forming GGEEF protein from Vibrio cholerae

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Effect of site-directed mutagenesis at the GGEEF domain of the biofilm forming GGEEF protein from Vibrio cholerae
Published in
AMB Express, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13568-015-0168-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Om Prakash Chouhan, Divya Bandekar, Mousumi Hazra, Ashish Baghudana, Saugata Hazra, Sumit Biswas

Abstract

Vibrio cholerae, the cause of seven noted pandemics, leads a dual lifecycle-one in the human host in its virulent form, and the other as a sessile, non-virulent bacterium in aquatic bodies in surface biofilms. Surface biofilms have been attributed to be associated with a ubiquitous protein domain present in all branches of bacteria, known as the GGD(/E)EF domain. While the diguanlyate cyclase activities of these proteins are universally established, the role of these proteins as diguanlyate-specific phosphodiesterases in conjunction with a EAL domain has also been reported. The VC0395_0300 protein from V. cholerae which shows biofilm forming abilities also acts as a phosphodiesterase. Interestingly, this GGD(/E)EF protein contains a EAL site in the reverse orientation. We attempted to mutate the GGEEF signature along the sequence by site-directed mutagenesis. The resultant mutants (Sebox5-7) did not show much difference in phosphodiesterase activity in comparison with the wild type protein (Sebox3), indicating the independence of the phosphodiesterase activity of the protein from the GGD(/E)EF domain. However, the ability of the mutants to form surface biofilm was significantly lesser in the case of mutations in the three central positions of the signature domain.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 11%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#800
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,088
of 393,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 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 1,234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 393,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.