↓ Skip to main content

Proteins and antibodies in serum, plasma, and whole blood—size characterization using asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4)

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
330 Mendeley
Title
Proteins and antibodies in serum, plasma, and whole blood—size characterization using asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4)
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1127-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mats Leeman, Jaeyeong Choi, Sebastian Hansson, Matilda Ulmius Storm, Lars Nilsson

Abstract

The analysis of aggregates of therapeutic proteins is crucial in order to ensure efficacy and patient safety. Typically, the analysis is performed in the finished formulation to ensure that aggregates are not present. An important question is, however, what happens to therapeutic proteins, with regard to oligomerization and aggregation, after they have been administrated (i.e., in the blood). In this paper, the separation of whole blood, plasma, and serum is shown using asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (AF4) with a minimum of sample pre-treatment. Furthermore, the analysis and size characterization of a fluorescent antibody in blood plasma using AF4 are demonstrated. The results show the suitability and strength of AF4 for blood analysis and open new important routes for the analysis and characterization of therapeutic proteins in the blood.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 330 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 330 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 70 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 15%
Student > Master 36 11%
Researcher 27 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 4%
Other 20 6%
Unknown 113 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 17%
Chemistry 42 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 6%
Engineering 19 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 5%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 126 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,609,078
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#198
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,706
of 344,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#4
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 344,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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 97% of its contemporaries.