↓ Skip to main content

Strategies in ‘snake venomics’ aiming at an integrative view of compositional, functional, and immunological characteristics of venoms

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
Strategies in ‘snake venomics’ aiming at an integrative view of compositional, functional, and immunological characteristics of venoms
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40409-017-0117-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Lomonte, Juan J. Calvete

Abstract

This work offers a general overview on the evolving strategies for the proteomic analysis of snake venoms, and discusses how these may be combined through diverse experimental approaches with the goal of achieving a more comprehensive knowledge on the compositional, toxic, and immunological characteristics of venoms. Some recent developments in this field are summarized, highlighting how strategies have evolved from the mere cataloguing of venom components (proteomics/venomics), to a broader exploration of their immunological (antivenomics) and functional (toxicovenomics) characteristics. Altogether, the combination of these complementary strategies is helping to build a wider, more integrative view of the life-threatening protein cocktails produced by venomous snakes, responsible for thousands of deaths every year.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 23%
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 42 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 7%
Chemistry 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 3%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 54 27%
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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#332
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,377
of 324,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 324,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.