↓ Skip to main content

Developing novel anthelmintics from plant cysteine proteinases

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Developing novel anthelmintics from plant cysteine proteinases
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, September 2008
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-1-29
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerzy M Behnke, David J Buttle, Gillian Stepek, Ann Lowe, Ian R Duce

Abstract

Intestinal helminth infections of livestock and humans are predominantly controlled by treatment with three classes of synthetic drugs, but some livestock nematodes have now developed resistance to all three classes and there are signs that human hookworms are becoming less responsive to the two classes (benzimidazoles and the nicotinic acetylcholine agonists) that are licensed for treatment of humans. New anthelmintics are urgently needed, and whilst development of new synthetic drugs is ongoing, it is slow and there are no signs yet that novel compounds operating through different modes of action, will be available on the market in the current decade. The development of naturally-occurring compounds as medicines for human use and for treatment of animals is fraught with problems. In this paper we review the current status of cysteine proteinases from fruits and protective plant latices as novel anthelmintics, we consider some of the problems inherent in taking laboratory findings and those derived from folk-medicine to the market and we suggest that there is a wealth of new compounds still to be discovered that could be harvested to benefit humans and livestock.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 129 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 19%
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 28 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 6%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,112
of 5,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,137
of 95,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 95,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.