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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
mMass as a Software Tool for the Annotation of Cyclic Peptide Tandem Mass Spectra
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0044913 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timo H. J. Niedermeyer, Martin Strohalm |
| Abstract |
Natural or synthetic cyclic peptides often possess pronounced bioactivity. Their mass spectrometric characterization is difficult due to the predominant occurrence of non-proteinogenic monomers and the complex fragmentation patterns observed. Even though several software tools for cyclic peptide tandem mass spectra annotation have been published, these tools are still unable to annotate a majority of the signals observed in experimentally obtained mass spectra. They are thus not suitable for extensive mass spectrometric characterization of these compounds. This lack of advanced and user-friendly software tools has motivated us to extend the fragmentation module of a freely available open-source software, mMass (http://www.mmass.org), to allow for cyclic peptide tandem mass spectra annotation and interpretation. The resulting software has been tested on several cyanobacterial and other naturally occurring peptides. It has been found to be superior to other currently available tools concerning both usability and annotation extensiveness. Thus it is highly useful for accelerating the structure confirmation and elucidation of cyclic as well as linear peptides and depsipeptides. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 230 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
| Researcher | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 77 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 39 | 16% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 50 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#16,776,459
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#151,436
of 223,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,453
of 187,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,630
of 4,272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 187,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.