↓ Skip to main content

A Set of Experimentally Validated Decoys for the Human CC Chemokine Receptor 7 (CCR7) Obtained by Virtual Screening

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
A Set of Experimentally Validated Decoys for the Human CC Chemokine Receptor 7 (CCR7) Obtained by Virtual Screening
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, March 2022
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2022.855653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matic Proj, Steven De Jonghe, Tom Van Loy, Marko Jukič, Anže Meden, Luka Ciber, Črtomir Podlipnik, Uroš Grošelj, Janez Konc, Dominique Schols, Stanislav Gobec

Abstract

We present a state-of-the-art virtual screening workflow aiming at the identification of novel CC chemokine receptor 7 (CCR7) antagonists. Although CCR7 is associated with a variety of human diseases, such as immunological disorders, inflammatory diseases, and cancer, this target is underexplored in drug discovery and there are no potent and selective CCR7 small molecule antagonists available today. Therefore, computer-aided ligand-based, structure-based, and joint virtual screening campaigns were performed. Hits from these virtual screenings were tested in a CCL19-induced calcium signaling assay. After careful evaluation, none of the in silico hits were confirmed to have an antagonistic effect on CCR7. Hence, we report here a valuable set of 287 inactive compounds that can be used as experimentally validated decoys.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 29%
Student > Master 2 29%
Lecturer 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 29%
Chemistry 2 29%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
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 05 April 2022.
All research outputs
#18,291,775
of 23,493,900 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#7,495
of 17,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#319,458
of 469,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#509
of 1,242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,493,900 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 469,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,242 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 51% of its contemporaries.