↓ Skip to main content

Protein Engineering for Therapeutics, Part B

Overview of attention for book
Protein Engineering for Therapeutics, Part B
Elsevier
Attention for Chapter: Engineering cyclic Peptide toxins.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
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.
Chapter title
Engineering cyclic Peptide toxins.
Book title
Protein Engineering for Therapeutics, Part B
Published in
Methods in enzymology, January 2012
DOI 10.1016/b978-0-12-396962-0.00003-3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-0-12-396962-0
Authors

Clark RJ, Craik DJ, Richard J. Clark, David J. Craik

Abstract

Peptide-based toxins have attracted much attention in recent years for their exciting potential applications in drug design and development. This interest has arisen because toxins are highly potent and selectively target a range of physiologically important receptors. However, peptides suffer from a number of disadvantages, including poor in vivo stability and poor bioavailability. A number of naturally occurring cyclic peptides have been discovered in plants, animals, and bacteria that have exceptional stability and potentially ameliorate these disadvantages. The lessons learned from studies of the structures, stabilities, and biological activities of these cyclic peptides can be applied to the reengineering of toxins that are not naturally cyclic but are amenable to cyclization. In this chapter, we describe solid-phase chemical synthetic methods for the reengineering of peptide toxins to improve their suitability as therapeutic, diagnostic, or imaging agents. The focus is on small disulfide-rich peptides from the venoms of cone snails and scorpions, but the technology is potentially widely applicable to a number of other peptide-based toxins.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 34%
Chemistry 13 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 22%
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 27 August 2013.
All research outputs
#17,671,329
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Methods in enzymology
#1,971
of 2,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,607
of 243,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in enzymology
#51
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,587 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 243,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.