↓ Skip to main content

Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Structural Biology, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 2,067)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
1 X user
patent
7 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
419 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
412 Mendeley
citeulike
15 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs?
Published in
Current Opinion in Structural Biology, January 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.01.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew L Hopkins, Jonathan S Mason, John P Overington

Abstract

Structure-based drug design is now used widely in modern medicinal chemistry. The application of structural biology to medicinal chemistry has heralded the "rational drug design" vision of discovering exquisitely selective ligands. However, recent advances in post-genomic biology are indicating that polypharmacology may be a necessary trait for the efficacy of many drugs, therefore questioning the "one drug, one target" assumption of current rational drug design. By combining advances in chemoinformatics and structural biology, it might be possible to rationally design the next generation of promiscuous drugs with polypharmacology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 412 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 13 3%
United States 12 3%
Germany 4 <1%
China 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
India 3 <1%
Lithuania 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 356 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 111 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 87 21%
Student > Master 47 11%
Student > Bachelor 30 7%
Other 23 6%
Other 71 17%
Unknown 43 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 27%
Chemistry 101 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 7%
Computer Science 24 6%
Other 60 15%
Unknown 55 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 15 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,172,507
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Structural Biology
#16
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,804
of 170,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Structural Biology
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 170,777 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.