↓ Skip to main content

It is time for top-down venomics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
It is time for top-down venomics
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40409-017-0135-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The protein composition of animal venoms is usually determined by peptide-centric proteomics approaches (bottom-up proteomics). However, this technique cannot, in most cases, distinguish among toxin proteoforms, herein called toxiforms, because of the protein inference problem. Top-down proteomics (TDP) analyzes intact proteins without digestion and provides high quality data to identify and characterize toxiforms. Denaturing top-down proteomics is the most disseminated subarea of TDP, which performs qualitative and quantitative analyzes of proteoforms up to ~30 kDa in high-throughput and automated fashion. On the other hand, native top-down proteomics provides access to information on large proteins (> 50 kDA) and protein interactions preserving non-covalent bonds and physiological complex stoichiometry. The use of native and denaturing top-down venomics introduced novel and useful techniques to toxinology, allowing an unprecedented characterization of venom proteins and protein complexes at the toxiform level. The collected data contribute to a deep understanding of venom natural history, open new possibilities to study the toxin evolution, and help in the development of better biotherapeutics.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 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 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 16%
Chemistry 9 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 21 28%
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 21 September 2021.
All research outputs
#9,226,911
of 27,788,586 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#167
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,912
of 342,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,788,586 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 342,653 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them