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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Sensitive and Specific Detection of the Non-Human Sialic Acid N-Glycolylneuraminic Acid In Human Tissues and Biotherapeutic Products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0004241 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra L. Diaz, Vered Padler-Karavani, Darius Ghaderi, Nancy Hurtado-Ziola, Hai Yu, Xi Chen, Els C. M. Brinkman-Van der Linden, Ajit Varki, Nissi M. Varki |
| Abstract |
Humans are genetically defective in synthesizing the common mammalian sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), but can metabolically incorporate it from dietary sources (particularly red meat and milk) into glycoproteins and glycolipids of human tumors, fetuses and some normal tissues. Metabolic incorporation of Neu5Gc from animal-derived cells and medium components also results in variable contamination of molecules and cells intended for human therapies. These Neu5Gc-incorporation phenomena are practically significant, because normal humans can have high levels of circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies. Thus, there is need for the sensitive and specific detection of Neu5Gc in human tissues and biotherapeutic products. Unlike monoclonal antibodies that recognize Neu5Gc only in the context of underlying structures, chicken immunoglobulin Y (IgY) polyclonal antibodies can recognize Neu5Gc in broader contexts. However, prior preparations of such antibodies (including our own) suffered from some non-specificity, as well as some cross-reactivity with the human sialic acid N-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu5Ac). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 18% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 35% |
| Chemistry | 14 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,253,429
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,898
of 197,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,613
of 171,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#125
of 504 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 171,782 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 504 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.