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
| Title |
Anticancer and Toxic Properties of Cyclotides are Dependent on Phosphatidylethanolamine Phospholipid Targeting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ChemBioChem, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/cbic.201402144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sónia Troeira Henriques, Yen‐Hua Huang, Stephanie Chaousis, Conan K. Wang, David J. Craik |
| Abstract |
Cyclotides, ultrastable disulfide-rich cyclic peptides, can be engineered to bind and inhibit specific cancer targets. In addition, some cyclotides are toxic to cancer cells, though not much is known about their mechanisms of action. Here we delineated the potential mode of action of cyclotides towards cancer cells. A novel set of analogues of kalata B1 (the prototypic cyclotide) and kalata B2 and cycloviolacin O2 were examined for their membrane-binding affinity and selectivity towards cancer cells. By using solution-state NMR, surface plasmon resonance, flow cytometry and bioassays we show that cyclotides are toxic against cancer and non-cancerous cells and their toxicity correlates with their ability to target and disrupt lipid bilayers that contain phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipids. Our results suggest that the potential of cyclotides as anticancer therapeutics might best be realised by combining their amenability to epitope engineering with their ability to bind cancer cell membranes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 28% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 28% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
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 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,011,776
of 24,590,593 outputs
Outputs from ChemBioChem
#4,462
of 5,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,294
of 235,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ChemBioChem
#52
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,590,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,919 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 235,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.