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 |
Proteome Profiles of Digested Products of Commercial Meat Sources
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2017.00008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li Li, Yuan Liu, Guanghong Zhou, Xinglian Xu, Chunbao Li |
| Abstract |
This study was designed to characterize in vitro-digested products of proteins from four commercial meat products, including dry-cured ham, cooked ham, emulsion-type sausage, and dry-cured sausage. The samples were homogenized and incubated with pepsin and trypsin. The digestibility and particle sizes of digested products were measured. Nano-LC-MS/MS was applied to characterize peptides. The results showed the highest digestibility and the lowest particle size in dry-cured ham (P < 0.05), while the opposite was for cooked ham (P < 0.05). Nano-LC-MS/MS analysis revealed that dry-cured ham samples had the greatest number of 750-3,500 Da Mw peptides in pepsin-digested products. In the digested products of cooked ham and emulsion-type sausage, a lot of peptides were matched with soy protein that was added in the formulations. In addition, protein oxidation was also observed in different meat products. Our findings give an insight into nutritional values of different meat products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 31% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 38% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 25% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 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 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,001
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#1,804
of 4,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,076
of 308,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 308,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.