↓ Skip to main content

Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibitors

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Matrix Metalloproteinase Inhibitors
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/11318390-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

György Dormán, Sándor Cseh, István Hajdú, László Barna, Dénes Kónya, Krisztina Kupai, László Kovács, Péter Ferdinandy

Abstract

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) play an important role in tissue remodelling associated with various physiological and pathological processes, such as morphogenesis, angiogenesis, tissue repair, arthritis, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic inflammation and cancer metastasis. As a result, MMPs are considered to be viable drug targets in the therapy of these diseases. Despite the high therapeutic potential of MMP inhibitors (MMPIs), all clinical trials have failed to date, except for doxycycline for periodontal disease. This can be attributed to (i) poor selectivity of the MMPIs, (ii) poor target validation for the targeted therapy and (iii) poorly defined predictive preclinical animal models for safety and efficacy. Lessons from previous failures, such as recent discoveries of oxidative/nitrosative activation and phosphorylation of MMPs, as well as novel non-matrix related intra- and extracellular targets of MMP, give new hope for MMPI development for both chronic and acute diseases. In this article we critically review the major structural determinants of the selectivity and the milestones of past design efforts of MMPIs where 2-/3-dimensional structure-based methods were intensively applied. We also analyse the in vitro screening and preclinical/clinical pharmacology approaches, with particular emphasis on drawing conclusions on how to overcome efficacy and safety problems through better target validation and design of preclinical studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 10%
Chemistry 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 22 23%
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 13 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,268
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,593
of 188,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#523
of 1,509 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 188,983 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,509 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.