↓ Skip to main content

A Limited Structural Modification Results in a Significantly More Efficacious Diazachrysene-Based Filovirus Inhibitor

Overview of attention for article published in Viruses, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

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.
Title
A Limited Structural Modification Results in a Significantly More Efficacious Diazachrysene-Based Filovirus Inhibitor
Published in
Viruses, August 2012
DOI 10.3390/v4081279
Pubmed ID
Authors

Života Selaković, Dejan Opsenica, Brett Eaton, Cary Retterer, Sina Bavari, James C. Burnett, Bogdan A. Šolaja, Rekha G. Panchal

Abstract

Ebola (EBOV) and Marburg (MARV) filoviruses are highly infectious pathogens causing deadly hemorrhagic fever in humans and non-human primates. Promising vaccine candidates providing immunity against filoviruses have been reported. However, the sporadic nature and swift progression of filovirus disease underlines the need for the development of small molecule therapeutics providing immediate antiviral effects. Herein we describe a brief structural exploration of two previously reported diazachrysene (DAAC)-based EBOV inhibitors. Specifically, three analogs were prepared to examine how slight substituent modifications would affect inhibitory efficacy and inhibitor-mediated toxicity during not only EBOV, but also MARV cellular infection. Of the three analogs, one was highly efficacious, providing IC(50) values of 0.696 µM ± 0.13 µM and 2.76 µM ± 0.21 µM against EBOV and MARV infection, respectively, with little or no associated cellular toxicity. Overall, the structure-activity and structure-toxicity results from this study provide a framework for the future development of DAAC-based filovirus inhibitors that will be both active and non-toxic in vivo.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Librarian 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Chemistry 4 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Viruses
#8,589
of 10,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,415
of 186,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Viruses
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 186,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.