↓ Skip to main content

Bioinformatics-Aided Venomics

Overview of attention for article published in Toxins, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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.
Title
Bioinformatics-Aided Venomics
Published in
Toxins, June 2015
DOI 10.3390/toxins7062159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quentin Kaas, David J Craik

Abstract

Venomics is a modern approach that combines transcriptomics and proteomics to explore the toxin content of venoms. This review will give an overview of computational approaches that have been created to classify and consolidate venomics data, as well as algorithms that have helped discovery and analysis of toxin nucleic acid and protein sequences, toxin three-dimensional structures and toxin functions. Bioinformatics is used to tackle specific challenges associated with the identification and annotations of toxins. Recognizing toxin transcript sequences among second generation sequencing data cannot rely only on basic sequence similarity because toxins are highly divergent. Mass spectrometry sequencing of mature toxins is challenging because toxins can display a large number of post-translational modifications. Identifying the mature toxin region in toxin precursor sequences requires the prediction of the cleavage sites of proprotein convertases, most of which are unknown or not well characterized. Tracing the evolutionary relationships between toxins should consider specific mechanisms of rapid evolution as well as interactions between predatory animals and prey. Rapidly determining the activity of toxins is the main bottleneck in venomics discovery, but some recent bioinformatics and molecular modeling approaches give hope that accurate predictions of toxin specificity could be made in the near future.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 19%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 19%
Chemistry 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,574,276
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Toxins
#1,658
of 3,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,946
of 267,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxins
#34
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 267,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.