↓ Skip to main content

Tracking dipeptides at work-uptake and intracellular fate in CHO culture

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.
Title
Tracking dipeptides at work-uptake and intracellular fate in CHO culture
Published in
AMB Express, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13568-016-0221-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andres Sánchez-Kopper, Max Becker, Jennifer Pfizenmaier, Christian Kessler, Andreas Karau, Ralf Takors

Abstract

Market demands for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are steadily increasing worldwide. As a result, production processes using Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) are in the focus of ongoing intensification studies for maximizing cell-specific and volumetric productivities. This includes the optimization of animal-derived component free (ADCF) cultivation media as part of good cell culture practice. Dipeptides are known to improve CHO culture performance. However, little or even conflicting assumptions exist about their putative import and functionality inside the cells. A set of well-known performance boosters and new dipeptide prospects was evaluated. The present study revealed that dipeptides are indeed imported in the cells, where they are decomposed to the amino acids building blocks. Subsequently, they are metabolized or, unexpectedly, secreted to the medium. Monoclonal antibody production boosting additives like L-alanine-L-glutamine (AQ) or glycyl-L-glutamine (GQ) can be assigned to fast or slow dipeptide uptake, respectively, thus pinpointing to the need to study dipeptide kinetics and to adjust their feeding individually for optimizing mAb production.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Chemical Engineering 3 9%
Chemistry 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,893,808
of 13,500,498 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#92
of 862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,646
of 265,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 862 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 265,594 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.