↓ Skip to main content

Peptide Self-Assembly

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 24: Using Molecular Tweezers to Remodel Abnormal Protein Self-Assembly and Inhibit the Toxicity of Amyloidogenic Proteins
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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.
Chapter title
Using Molecular Tweezers to Remodel Abnormal Protein Self-Assembly and Inhibit the Toxicity of Amyloidogenic Proteins
Chapter number 24
Book title
Peptide Self-Assembly
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7811-3_24
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-7809-0, 978-1-4939-7811-3
Authors

Ravinder Malik, Jing Di, Gayatri Nair, Aida Attar, Karen Taylor, Edmond Teng, Frank-Gerrit Klärner, Thomas Schrader, Gal Bitan, Malik, Ravinder, Di, Jing, Nair, Gayatri, Attar, Aida, Taylor, Karen, Teng, Edmond, Klärner, Frank-Gerrit, Schrader, Thomas, Bitan, Gal

Abstract

Molecular tweezers (MTs) are broad-spectrum inhibitors of abnormal protein self-assembly, which act by binding selectively to lysine and arginine residues. Through this unique mechanism of action, MTs inhibit formation of toxic oligomers and aggregates. Their efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in vitro, in cell culture, and in animal models. Here, we discuss the application of MTs in diverse in vitro and in vivo systems, the experimental details, the scope of their use, and the limitations of the approach. We also consider methods for administration of MTs in animal models to measure efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic parameters in proteinopathies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 50%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Professor 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 2 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,532,087
of 13,793,900 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#301
of 8,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,180
of 274,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,793,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,600 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 274,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.