↓ Skip to main content

Methods of probing the interactions between small molecules and disordered proteins

Overview of attention for article published in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Methods of probing the interactions between small molecules and disordered proteins
Published in
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00018-017-2563-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriella T. Heller, Francesco A. Aprile, Michele Vendruscolo

Abstract

It is generally recognized that a large fraction of the human proteome is made up of proteins that remain disordered in their native states. Despite the fact that such proteins play key biological roles and are involved in many major human diseases, they still represent challenging targets for drug discovery. A major bottleneck for the identification of compounds capable of interacting with these proteins and modulating their disease-promoting behaviour is the development of effective techniques to probe such interactions. The difficulties in carrying out binding measurements have resulted in a poor understanding of the mechanisms underlying these interactions. In order to facilitate further methodological advances, here we review the most commonly used techniques to probe three types of interactions involving small molecules: (1) those that disrupt functional interactions between disordered proteins; (2) those that inhibit the aberrant aggregation of disordered proteins, and (3) those that lead to binding disordered proteins in their monomeric states. In discussing these techniques, we also point out directions for future developments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 29%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Professor 8 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 30 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 42 27%
Chemistry 34 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 12%
Physics and Astronomy 7 5%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 33 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,085,568
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#1,487
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,736
of 317,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#13
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 317,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.