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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Trends in herbgenomics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science China Life Sciences, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11427-018-9352-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tianyi Xin, Yu Zhang, Xiangdong Pu, Ranran Gao, Zhichao Xu, Jingyuan Song |
| Abstract |
From Shen Nong's Herbal Classic (Shennong Bencao Jing) to the Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao Gangmu) and the first scientific Nobel Prize for the mainland of China, each milestone in the historical process of the development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) involves screening, testing and integrating. After thousands of years of inheritance and development, herbgenomics (bencaogenomics) has bridged the gap between TCM and international advanced omics studies, promoting the application of frontier technologies in TCM. It is a discipline that uncovers the genetic information and regulatory networks of herbs to clarify their molecular mechanism in the prevention and treatment of human diseases. The main theoretical system includes genomics, functional genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, epigenomics, metagenomics, synthetic biology, pharmacogenomics of TCM, and bioinformatics, among other fields. Herbgenomics is mainly applicable to the study of medicinal model plants, genomic-assisted breeding, herbal synthetic biology, protection and utilization of gene resources, TCM quality evaluation and control, and TCM drug development. Such studies will accelerate the application of cutting-edge technologies, revitalize herbal research, and strongly promote the development and modernization of TCM. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,017,219
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Science China Life Sciences
#434
of 1,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,637
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science China Life Sciences
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.