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 |
Assay Platform for Clinically Relevant Metallo-β-lactamases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1021/jm400769b |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sander S. van Berkel, Jürgen Brem, Anna M. Rydzik, Ramya Salimraj, Ricky Cain, Anil Verma, Raymond J. Owens, Colin W. G. Fishwick, James Spencer, Christopher J. Schofield |
| Abstract |
Metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs) are a growing threat to the use of almost all clinically used β-lactam antibiotics. The identification of broad-spectrum MBL inhibitors is hampered by the lack of a suitable screening platform, consisting of appropriate substrates and a set of clinically relevant MBLs. We report procedures for the preparation of a set of clinically relevant metallo-β-lactamases (i.e., NDM-1 (New Delhi MBL), IMP-1 (Imipenemase), SPM-1 (São Paulo MBL), and VIM-2 (Verona integron-encoded MBL)) and the identification of suitable fluorogenic substrates (umbelliferone-derived cephalosporins). The fluorogenic substrates were compared to chromogenic substrates (CENTA, nitrocefin, and imipenem), showing improved sensitivity and kinetic parameters. The efficiency of the fluorogenic substrates was exemplified by inhibitor screening, identifying 4-chloroisoquinolinols as potential pan MBL inhibitors. |
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 | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 26 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 46 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 13% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#4,025,095
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
#6,081
of 22,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,444
of 175,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
#25
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 175,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.