↓ Skip to main content

Design and Synthesis of N‑Aryl Phenoxyethoxy Pyridinones as Highly Selective and CNS Penetrant mGlu3 NAMs

Overview of attention for article published in ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Design and Synthesis of N‑Aryl Phenoxyethoxy Pyridinones as Highly Selective and CNS Penetrant mGlu3 NAMs
Published in
ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, August 2017
DOI 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.7b00249
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Herein, we detail the optimization of the mGlu3 NAM, VU0650786, via a reductionist approach to afford a novel, simplified mGlu3 NAM scaffold that engenders potent and selective mGlu3 inhibition (mGlu3 IC50 = 245 nM, mGlu2 IC50 > 30 μM) with excellent central nervous system penetration (rat brain/plasma Kp = 1.2, Kp,uu = 0.40). Moreover, this new chemotype, exemplified by VU6010572, requires only four synthetic steps and displays improved physiochemical properties and in vivo efficacy in a mouse tail suspension test (MED = 3 mg/kg i.p.).

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 profiles of 3 X users 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 32 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 %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 19%
Chemistry 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,861,103
of 27,625,920 outputs
Outputs from ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#1,104
of 2,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,473
of 333,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
#20
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,625,920 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 333,598 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.