↓ Skip to main content

Spider-Venom Peptides as Therapeutics

Overview of attention for article published in Toxins, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
50 X users
patent
10 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
366 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
Spider-Venom Peptides as Therapeutics
Published in
Toxins, December 2010
DOI 10.3390/toxins2122851
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Spiders are the most successful venomous animals and the most abundant terrestrial predators. Their remarkable success is due in large part to their ingenious exploitation of silk and the evolution of pharmacologically complex venoms that ensure rapid subjugation of prey. Most spider venoms are dominated by disulfide-rich peptides that typically have high affinity and specificity for particular subtypes of ion channels and receptors. Spider venoms are conservatively predicted to contain more than 10 million bioactive peptides, making them a valuable resource for drug discovery. Here we review the structure and pharmacology of spider-venom peptides that are being used as leads for the development of therapeutics against a wide range of pathophysiological conditions including cardiovascular disorders, chronic pain, inflammation, and erectile dysfunction.

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 50 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 366 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 %
India 4 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sudan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 350 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 17%
Student > Master 55 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 13%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 92 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 108 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 66 18%
Chemistry 27 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 3%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 107 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 06 May 2026.
All research outputs
#817,659
of 34,583,980 outputs
Outputs from Toxins
#87
of 4,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,202
of 256,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Toxins
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,583,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 256,025 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.