↓ Skip to main content

Science

Article Metrics

Protein synthesis. Rqc2p and 60S ribosomal subunits mediate mRNA-independent elongation of nascent chains.

Overview of attention for article published in Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
280 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Protein synthesis. Rqc2p and 60S ribosomal subunits mediate mRNA-independent elongation of nascent chains.
Published in
Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1259724
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter S. Shen, Joseph Park, Yidan Qin, Xueming Li, Krishna Parsawar, Matthew H. Larson, James Cox, Yifan Cheng, Alan M. Lambowitz, Jonathan S. Weissman, Onn Brandman, Adam Frost

Abstract

In Eukarya, stalled translation induces 40S dissociation and recruitment of the ribosome quality control complex (RQC) to the 60S subunit, which mediates nascent chain degradation. Here we report cryo-electron microscopy structures revealing that the RQC components Rqc2p (YPL009C/Tae2) and Ltn1p (YMR247C/Rkr1) bind to the 60S subunit at sites exposed after 40S dissociation, placing the Ltn1p RING (Really Interesting New Gene) domain near the exit channel and Rqc2p over the P-site transfer RNA (tRNA). We further demonstrate that Rqc2p recruits alanine- and threonine-charged tRNA to the A site and directs the elongation of nascent chains independently of mRNA or 40S subunits. Our work uncovers an unexpected mechanism of protein synthesis, in which a protein--not an mRNA--determines tRNA recruitment and the tagging of nascent chains with carboxy-terminal Ala and Thr extensions ("CAT tails").

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 252 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 104 37%
Researcher 53 19%
Student > Master 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 45 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 161 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 22%
Chemistry 14 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 5%
Unspecified 12 4%
Other 17 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 288. 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 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#32,300
of 11,669,900 outputs
Outputs from Science
#1,150
of 52,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#793
of 255,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#44
of 761 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,669,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 255,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 761 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.