↓ Skip to main content

Peptide-based synthetic vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in Chemical Science, January 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
451 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
496 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
Peptide-based synthetic vaccines
Published in
Chemical Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1039/c5sc03892h
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariusz Skwarczynski, Istvan Toth

Abstract

Classically all vaccines were produced using live or attenuated microorganisms or parts of them. However, the use of whole organisms, their components or the biological process for vaccine production has several weaknesses. The presence of immunologically redundant biological components or biological impurities in such vaccines might cause major problems. All the disadvantageous of traditional vaccines might be overcome via the development of fully synthetic peptide-based vaccines. However, once minimal antigenic epitopes only are applied for immunisation, the immune responses are poor. The use of an adjuvant can overcome this obstacle; however, it may raise new glitches. Here we briefly summarise the current stand on peptide-based vaccines, discuss epitope and adjuvant design, and multi-epitope and nanoparticle-based vaccine approaches. This mini review discusses also the disadvantages and benefits associated with peptide-based vaccines. It proposes possible methods to overcome the weaknesses of the synthetic vaccine strategy and suggests future directions for its development.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 496 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 16%
Student > Bachelor 78 16%
Student > Master 56 11%
Researcher 53 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 3%
Other 60 12%
Unknown 152 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 96 19%
Chemistry 54 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 46 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 5%
Other 56 11%
Unknown 175 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 30 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,531,500
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Chemical Science
#487
of 7,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,797
of 393,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemical Science
#22
of 460 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 393,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 460 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 95% of its contemporaries.