↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing the Promise of Drug Repositioning through Genetics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, December 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Enhancing the Promise of Drug Repositioning through Genetics
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00896
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayne-Louise E. Pritchard, Tracy A. O’Mara, Dylan M. Glubb

Abstract

The development of new drugs has become challenging as the necessary investments in time and money have increased while drug approval rates have decreased. A potential solution to this problem is drug repositioning which aims to use existing drugs to treat conditions for which they were not originally intended. One approach that may enhance the likelihood of success is to reposition drugs against a target that has a genetic basis. The multitude of genome-wide association studies (GWASs) conducted in recent years represents a large potential pool of novel targets for drug repositioning. Although trait-associated variants identified from GWAS still need to be causally linked to a target gene, recently developed functional genomic techniques, databases, and workflows are helping to remove this bottleneck. The pre-clinical validation of repositioning against these targets also needs to be carefully performed to ensure that findings are not confounded by off-target effects or limitations of the techniques used. Nevertheless, the approaches described in this review have the potential to provide a faster, cheaper and more certain route to clinical approval.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 23%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,055,470
of 23,572,442 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,766
of 17,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,361
of 442,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#24
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 442,926 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.