↓ Skip to main content

New trends in aggregating tags for therapeutic protein purification

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology Techniques, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
New trends in aggregating tags for therapeutic protein purification
Published in
Biotechnology Techniques, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10529-018-2543-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaofeng Yang, Marco Pistolozzi, Zhanglin Lin

Abstract

The rapid growth of the therapeutic protein market calls for more efficient purification methods. Various aggregating tags have recently emerged as simple, fast, cost-effective and column-free technologies for protein (and peptide) purification. In general, these column-free protein purification technologies involve the use of aggregating tags that induce the target protein into insoluble aggregates. These aggregates can be easily separated from soluble impurities and the target protein or peptide is then liberated by a cleavage process. This review summarizes the current state-of-the-art in using aggregating tags for protein purification. The methods are here categorized as follows: (1) tags that allow soluble expression of target protein in vivo and induce aggregation in vitro; (2) tags that induce soluble expression and self-assembling of target protein on insoluble biological polyester beads in vivo; (3) tags that induce formation of inactive aggregates in vivo; (4) tags that induce formation of active aggregates in vivo.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 19%
Chemical Engineering 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 30%
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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,359,319
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Techniques
#751
of 2,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,138
of 343,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Techniques
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,762 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 343,586 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.