↓ Skip to main content

Identification of RNAIII-binding proteins in Staphylococcus aureus using tethered RNAs and streptavidin aptamers based pull-down assay

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Identification of RNAIII-binding proteins in Staphylococcus aureus using tethered RNAs and streptavidin aptamers based pull-down assay
Published in
BMC Microbiology, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12866-015-0435-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xu Zhang, Qing Zhu, Tian, Changlong Zhao, Jianye Zang, Ting Xue, Baolin Sun

Abstract

It has been widely recognized that small RNAs (sRNAs) play important roles in physiology and virulence control in bacteria. In Staphylococcus aureus, many sRNAs have been identified and some of them have been functionally studied. Since it is difficult to identify RNA-binding proteins (RBPs), very little has been known about the RBPs in S. aureus, especially those associated with sRNAs. Here we adopted a tRNA scaffold streptavidin aptamer based pull-down assay to identify RBPs in S. aureus. The tethered RNA was successfully captured by the streptavidin magnetic beads, and proteins binding to RNAIII were isolated and analyzed by mass spectrometry. We have identified 81 proteins, and expressed heterologously 9 of them in Escherichia coli. The binding ability of the recombinant proteins with RNAIII was further analyzed by electrophoresis mobility shift assay, and the result indicates that proteins CshA, RNase J2, Era, Hu, WalR, Pyk, and FtsZ can bind to RNAIII. This study suggests that some proteins can bind to RNA III in S. aureus, and may be involved in RNA III function. And tRSA based pull-down assay is an effective method to search for RBPs in bacteria, which should facilitate the identification and functional study of RBPs in diverse bacterial species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Researcher 6 19%
Unspecified 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 35%
Unspecified 3 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 2 6%

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 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,920,366
of 6,908,690 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#982
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,806
of 210,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#30
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,908,690 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 1,228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 210,038 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 32 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.