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 |
Tagging polyketides/non-ribosomal peptides with a clickable functionality and applications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Chemistry, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fchem.2015.00011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xuejun Zhu, Wenjun Zhang |
| Abstract |
Bioorthogonal chemistry has recently emerged to be one of the most powerful tools in drug discovery and chemical biology. The exploration of it has successfully advanced the field of natural product research. In this Perspective, we survey current strategies for the installation of chemical handles into the molecular scaffolds of several major classes of natural products, including polyketides (PKs), non-ribosomal peptides (NRPs), and their hybrids. By tagging these natural products with chemical handles and coupling them with subsequent bioorthogonal reactions, researchers have visualized and studied the mode of action of natural products, as well as synthesized derivatives with better pharmaceutical properties. We conclude this Perspective by considering two questions: is there a general way to synthesize tagged PKs/NRPs? Does natural product labeling have a broader impact in the field of natural product research beyond current known applications? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 36% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 9 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 17% |
| Chemical Engineering | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
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 06 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,803,937
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#1,181
of 5,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,375
of 254,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#9
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,897 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 254,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.