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 |
Guiding the Selection of Human Antibodies from Phage Display Repertoires to a Single Epitope of an Antigen
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biotechnology, September 1994
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nbt0994-899 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laurent S. Jespers, Andy Roberts, Stephen M. Mahler, Greg Winter, Hennie R. Hoogenboom |
| Abstract |
We have developed a strategy for guiding the selection of human antibody fragments from phage display repertoires to a single epitope of an antigen, using rodent monoclonal antibodies as a template. Thus the heavy chain of a rodent antibody (MAb32) directed against human tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha) was cloned and paired as a template chain with a repertoire of human light chains for display as Fab fragments on filamentous phage. The phage were selected by binding to the antigen. The selected human light chains were in turn paired with a repertoire of human heavy chains displayed on phage, and the phage selected again. The isolated phage displaying human antibody fragments binding to TNF alpha also bound to a peptide comprising the N-terminal region of TNF alpha as with MAb32. One of the human Fab fragments was recloned for expression as a glycosylated human antibody in mammalian cells: Binding to TNF alpha could be competed with MAb32 or with anti-serum to the peptide, indicating the same epitope. The human antibody was found to have a binding affinity (Kd = 15 nM) similar to MAb32 (Kd = 26 nM). The process contrasts with existing means of "humanizing" rodent monoclonal antibodies in that the antibodies derived are completely human. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Professor | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 28% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 10 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#2,532,201
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology
#14
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#696
of 19,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 19,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.