↓ Skip to main content

Biological redundancy of endogenous GPCR ligands in the gut and the potential for endogenous functional selectivity

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
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
Biological redundancy of endogenous GPCR ligands in the gut and the potential for endogenous functional selectivity
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgina L. Thompson, Meritxell Canals, Daniel P. Poole

Abstract

This review focuses on the existence and function of multiple endogenous agonists of the somatostatin and opioid receptors with an emphasis on their expression in the gastrointestinal tract. These agonists generally arise from the proteolytic cleavage of prepropeptides during peptide maturation or from degradation of peptides by extracellular or intracellular endopeptidases. In other examples, endogenous peptide agonists for the same G protein-coupled receptors can be products of distinct genes but contain high sequence homology. This apparent biological redundancy has recently been challenged by the realization that different ligands may engender distinct receptor conformations linked to different intracellular signaling profiles and, as such the existence of distinct ligands may underlie mechanisms to finely tune physiological responses. We propose that further characterization of signaling pathways activated by these endogenous ligands will provide invaluable insight into the mechanisms governing biased agonism. Moreover, these ligands may prove useful in the design of novel therapeutic tools to target distinct signaling pathways, thereby favoring desirable effects and limiting detrimental on-target effects. Finally we will discuss the limitations of this area of research and we will highlight the difficulties that need to be addressed when examining endogenous bias in tissues and in animals.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Egypt 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,311,799
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#6,378
of 16,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,271
of 361,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#28
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,011 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 361,884 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 52% of its contemporaries.