↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative phenotypic and pathway profiling guides rational drug combination strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Quantitative phenotypic and pathway profiling guides rational drug combination strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00118
Pubmed ID
Authors

John C. Dawson, Neil O. Carragher

Abstract

Advances in target-based drug discovery strategies have enabled drug discovery groups in academia and industry to become very effective at generating molecules that are potent and selective against single targets. However, it has become apparent from disappointing results in recent clinical trials that a major challenge to the development of successful targeted therapies for treating complex multifactorial diseases is overcoming heterogeneity in target mechanism among patients and inherent or acquired drug resistance. Consequently, reductionist target directed drug-discovery approaches are not appropriately tailored toward identifying and optimizing multi-targeted therapeutics or rational drug combinations for complex disease. In this article, we describe the application of emerging high-content phenotypic profiling and analysis tools to support robust evaluation of drug combination performance following dose-ratio matrix screening. We further describe how the incorporation of high-throughput reverse phase protein microarrays with phenotypic screening can provide rational drug combination hypotheses but also confirm the mechanism-of-action of novel drug combinations, to facilitate future preclinical and clinical development strategies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 22%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Professor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Chemistry 9 12%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 9 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 June 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#6,385
of 19,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,755
of 241,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#39
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 19,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 241,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.