↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a High-Throughput Peptide Reactivity Format Assay for Assessment of the Skin Sensitization Potential of Chemicals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Evaluation of a High-Throughput Peptide Reactivity Format Assay for Assessment of the Skin Sensitization Potential of Chemicals
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chin Lin Wong, Ai-Leen Lam, Maree T. Smith, Sussan Ghassabian

Abstract

The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) is a validated method for in vitro assessment of the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. In the present work, we describe a peptide reactivity assay using 96-well plate format and systematically identified the optimal assay conditions for accurate and reproducible classification of chemicals with known sensitizing capacity. The aim of the research is to ensure that the analytical component of the peptide reactivity assay is robust, accurate, and reproducible in accordance with criteria that are used for the validation of bioanalytical methods. Analytical performance was evaluated using quality control samples (QCs; heptapeptides at low, medium, and high concentrations) and incubation of control chemicals (chemicals with known sensitization capacity, weak, moderate, strong, extreme, and non-sensitizers) with each of three synthetic heptapeptides, viz Cor1-C420 (Ac-NKKCDLF), cysteine- (Ac-RFAACAA), and lysine- (Ac-RFAAKAA) containing heptapeptides. The optimal incubation temperature for all three heptapeptides was 25°C. Apparent heptapeptide depletion was affected by vial material composition. Incubation of test chemicals with Cor1-C420, showed that peptide depletion was unchanged in polypropylene vials over 3-days storage in an autosampler but this was not the case for borosilicate glass vials. For cysteine-containing heptapeptide, the concentration was not stable by day 3 post-incubation in borosilicate glass vials. Although the lysine-containing heptapeptide concentration was unchanged in both polypropylene and borosilicate glass vials, the apparent extent of lysine-containing heptapeptide depletion by ethyl acrylate, differed between polypropylene (24.7%) and glass (47.3%) vials. Additionally, the peptide-chemical complexes for Cor1-C420-cinnamaldehyde and cysteine-containing heptapeptide-2, 4-dinitrochlorobenzene were partially reversible during 3-days of autosampler storage. These observations further highlight the difficulty in adapting in vitro methods to high-throughput format for screening the skin sensitization potential of large numbers of chemicals whilst ensuring that the data produced are both accurate and reproducible.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 4 19%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 May 2023.
All research outputs
#4,900,361
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,177
of 17,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,339
of 301,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#17
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 301,369 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.