↓ Skip to main content

Composition and applications of focus libraries to phenotypic assays

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Composition and applications of focus libraries to phenotypic assays
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Mai Wassermann, Luiz M. Camargo, Douglas S. Auld

Abstract

The wealth of bioactivity information now available on low-molecular weight compounds has enabled a paradigm shift in chemical biology and early phase drug discovery efforts. Traditionally chemical libraries have been most commonly employed in screening approaches where a bioassay is used to characterize a chemical library in a random search for active samples. However, robust curating of bioassay data, establishment of ontologies enabling mining of large chemical biology datasets, and a wealth of public chemical biology information has made possible the establishment of highly annotated compound collections. Such annotated chemical libraries can now be used to build a pathway/target hypothesis and have led to a new view where chemical libraries are used to characterize a bioassay. In this article we discuss the types of compounds in these annotated libraries composed of tools, probes, and drugs. As well, we provide rationale and a few examples for how such libraries can enable phenotypic/forward chemical genomic approaches. As with any approach, there are several pitfalls that need to be considered and we also outline some strategies to avoid these.

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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 27%
Researcher 19 23%
Other 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 25%
Chemistry 19 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 June 2022.
All research outputs
#3,661,763
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,563
of 16,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,766
of 228,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#13
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,009 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 228,866 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.