↓ Skip to main content

Small molecule inhibitors against PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints and current methodologies for their development: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Cell International, April 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Small molecule inhibitors against PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints and current methodologies for their development: a review
Published in
Cancer Cell International, April 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12935-021-01946-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chang Liu, Navindra P. Seeram, Hang Ma

Abstract

Programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) based immunotherapy is a revolutionary cancer therapy with great clinical success. The majority of clinically used PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are monoclonal antibodies but their applications are limited due to their poor oral bioavailability and immune-related adverse effects (irAEs). In contrast, several small molecule inhibitors against PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints show promising blockage effects on PD-1/PD-L1 interactions without irAEs. However, proper analytical methods and bioassays are required to effectively screen small molecule derived PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Herein, we summarize the biophysical and biochemical assays currently employed for the measurements of binding capacities, molecular interactions, and blocking effects of small molecule inhibitors on PD-1/PD-L1. In addition, the discovery of natural products based PD-1/PD-L1 antagonists utilizing these screening assays are reviewed. Potential pitfalls for obtaining false leading compounds as PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors by using certain binding bioassays are also discussed in this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 26 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 20%
Chemistry 10 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 30 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#8,306,033
of 25,483,400 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Cell International
#1,002
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,897
of 454,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Cell International
#13
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,483,400 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 454,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.