↓ Skip to main content

The Nuclear Receptor Superfamily

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 9: Methods to Identify Chromatin-Bound Protein Complexes: From Genome-Wide to Locus-Specific Approaches
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Methods to Identify Chromatin-Bound Protein Complexes: From Genome-Wide to Locus-Specific Approaches
Chapter number 9
Book title
The Nuclear Receptor Superfamily
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3724-0_9
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4939-3722-6, 978-1-4939-3724-0
Authors

Charles E. Massie, Massie, Charles E.

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing approaches coupled with functional genomics experiments have facilitated a rapid growth in our understanding of chromatin biology, from genome-wide maps of transcription factor binding and histone modifications to insights into higher order chromatin organization under specific cellular conditions. However in most cases these methods require a prior knowledge of the system of interest (e.g., targets for immunoprecipitation or modulation) and therefore are limited in their utility to identify novel components of pathways or for the study of uncharacterized pathways. Several orthologous proteomics approaches have been developed recently that bridge this gap, allowing the identification of protein complexes globally or at specific genomic loci. In this chapter the relative advantages of each approach will be explored and a detailed protocol given for DNA pull-down of a specific androgen receptor (AR) genomic target.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Computer Science 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,953,455
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,311
of 13,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,050
of 394,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#753
of 1,471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 394,794 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 1,471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.