↓ Skip to main content

Open drug discovery for the Zika virus

Overview of attention for article published in F1000 Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
83 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Open drug discovery for the Zika virus
Published in
F1000 Research, February 2016
DOI 10.12688/f1000research.8013.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean Ekins, Daniel Mietchen, Megan Coffee, Thomas P Stratton, Joel S Freundlich, Lucio Freitas-Junior, Eugene Muratov, Jair Siqueira-Neto, Antony J Williams, Carolina Andrade

Abstract

The Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak in the Americas has caused global concern that we may be on the brink of a healthcare crisis. The lack of research on ZIKV in the over 60 years that we have known about it has left us with little in the way of starting points for drug discovery. Our response can build on previous efforts with virus outbreaks and lean heavily on work done on other flaviviruses such as dengue virus. We provide some suggestions of what might be possible and propose an open drug discovery effort that mobilizes global science efforts and provides leadership, which thus far has been lacking. We also provide a listing of potential resources and molecules that could be prioritized for testing as in vitro assays for ZIKV are developed. We propose also that in order to incentivize drug discovery, a neglected disease priority review voucher should be available to those who successfully develop an FDA approved treatment. Learning from the response to the ZIKV, the approaches to drug discovery used and the success and failures will be critical for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 3%
United States 3 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 182 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 45 23%
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 50 26%
Unknown 7 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 36 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 6%
Other 45 23%
Unknown 19 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#245,269
of 16,067,572 outputs
Outputs from F1000 Research
#60
of 4,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,994
of 347,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from F1000 Research
#6
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,067,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 347,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.