↓ Skip to main content

The Nuclear Receptor Superfamily

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 3: Use of Differential Scanning Fluorimetry to Identify Nuclear Receptor Ligands
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Use of Differential Scanning Fluorimetry to Identify Nuclear Receptor Ligands
Chapter number 3
Book title
The Nuclear Receptor Superfamily
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3724-0_3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3722-6, 978-1-4939-3724-0
Authors

Kara A. DeSantis, Jeffrey L. Reinking, DeSantis, Kara A., Reinking, Jeffrey L.

Abstract

Identification of small molecules that interact specifically with the ligand-binding domains (LBDs) of nuclear receptors (NRs) can be accomplished using a variety of methodologies. Here, we describe the use of differential scanning fluorimetry to identify these ligands, a technique that requires no modification or derivatization of either the protein or the ligand, and uses an instrument that is becoming increasingly affordable and common in modern molecular biology laboratories, the quantitative, or real-time, PCR machine. Upon being introduced to specific ligands, nuclear receptors undergo structural and dynamic changes that tend to increase molecular stability, which can be measured by the resistance of the protein to heat denaturation. Differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) uses a dielectric sensitive fluorescent dye to measure the thermal denaturation, or "melting" point (Tm) of a protein under different conditions, in this case in the absence and presence of a candidate ligand. Using DSF, multiple candidates can be screened at once, in numbers corresponding to plate size of the instrument used (e.g., 96- or 384-well), allowing significant throughput if a modest library of compounds needs to be tested.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 50%
Chemical Engineering 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Chemistry 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,557,888
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#2,346
of 13,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,856
of 394,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#269
of 1,471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 394,794 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.