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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Chapter title |
Improving Proteome Coverage and Sample Recovery with Enhanced FASP (eFASP) for Quantitative Proteomic Experiments
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 2 |
| Book title |
Proteomics
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-6747-6_2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-6745-2, 978-1-4939-6747-6
|
| Authors |
Jonathan Erde, Rachel R. Ogorzalek Loo, Joseph A. Loo, Erde, Jonathan, Loo, Rachel R. Ogorzalek, Loo, Joseph A. |
| Editors |
Lucio Comai, Jonathan E. Katz, Parag Mallick |
| Abstract |
Enhanced Filter Aided Sample Preparation (eFASP) incorporates plastics passivation and digestion-enhancing surfactants into the traditional FASP workflow to reduce sample loss and increase hydrophobic protein representation in qualitative and quantitative proteomics experiments. Resulting protein digests are free of contaminants and can be analyzed directly by LC-MS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 25% |
| Researcher | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,245,269
of 23,081,466 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#747
of 13,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,088
of 424,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#96
of 1,242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,081,466 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 424,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,242 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 92% of its contemporaries.