| Title |
Linking neuroethology to the chemical biology of natural products: interactions between cone snails and their fish prey, a case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00359-017-1183-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Baldomero M. Olivera, Shrinivasan Raghuraman, Eric W. Schmidt, Helena Safavi-Hemami |
| Abstract |
From a biological perspective, a natural product can be defined as a compound evolved by an organism for chemical interactions with another organism including prey, predator, competitor, pathogen, symbiont or host. Natural products hold tremendous potential as drug leads and have been extensively studied by chemists and biochemists in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the biological purpose for which a natural product evolved is rarely addressed. By focusing on a well-studied group of natural products-venom components from predatory marine cone snails-this review provides a rationale for why a better understanding of the evolution, biology and biochemistry of natural products will facilitate both neuroscience and the potential for drug leads. The larger goal is to establish a new sub-discipline in the broader field of neuroethology that we refer to as "Chemical Neuroethology", linking the substantial work carried out by chemists on natural products with accelerating advances in neuroethology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 34% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,508,795
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,028
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,002
of 315,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 315,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.