↓ Skip to main content

Antibodies from combinatorial libraries use functional receptor pleiotropism to regulate cell fates

Overview of attention for article published in Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.
Article details
Title
Antibodies from combinatorial libraries use functional receptor pleiotropism to regulate cell fates
Published in
Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics, July 2015
DOI 10.1017/s0033583515000049
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To date, most antibodies from combinatorial libraries have been selected purely on the basis of binding. However, new methods now allow selection on the basis of function in animal cells. These selected agonist antibodies have given new insights into the important problem of signal transduction. Remarkably, when some antibodies bind to a given receptor they induce a cell fate that is different than that induced by the natural agonist to the same receptor. The fact that receptors can be functionally pleiotropic may yield new insights into the important problem of signal transduction.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Researcher 4 31%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Other 3 23%
Unknown 3 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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,241,383
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics
#116
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,988
of 262,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 262,453 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.