↓ Skip to main content

Allergic sensitization: screening methods

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Allergic sensitization: screening methods
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-7022-4-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory S Ladics, Jeremy Fry, Richard Goodman, Corinne Herouet-Guicheney, Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber, Charlotte B Madsen, André Penninks, Anna Pomés, Erwin L Roggen, Joost Smit, Jean-Michel Wal

Abstract

Experimental in silico, in vitro, and rodent models for screening and predicting protein sensitizing potential are discussed, including whether there is evidence of new sensitizations and allergies since the introduction of genetically modified crops in 1996, the importance of linear versus conformational epitopes, and protein families that become allergens. Some common challenges for predicting protein sensitization are addressed: (a) exposure routes; (b) frequency and dose of exposure; (c) dose-response relationships; (d) role of digestion, food processing, and the food matrix; (e) role of infection; (f) role of the gut microbiota; (g) influence of the structure and physicochemical properties of the protein; and (h) the genetic background and physiology of consumers. The consensus view is that sensitization screening models are not yet validated to definitively predict the de novo sensitizing potential of a novel protein. However, they would be extremely useful in the discovery and research phases of understanding the mechanisms of food allergy development, and may prove fruitful to provide information regarding potential allergenicity risk assessment of future products on a case by case basis. These data and findings were presented at a 2012 international symposium in Prague organized by the Protein Allergenicity Technical Committee of the International Life Sciences Institute's Health and Environmental Sciences Institute.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 14 16%
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 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,778,071
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#413
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,464
of 239,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 239,868 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.