↓ Skip to main content

Hypersusceptibility mechanism of Tenofovir-resistant HIV to EFdA

Overview of attention for article published in Retrovirology, June 2013
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Hypersusceptibility mechanism of Tenofovir-resistant HIV to EFdA
Published in
Retrovirology, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1742-4690-10-65
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleftherios Michailidis, Emily M Ryan, Atsuko Hachiya, Karen A Kirby, Bruno Marchand, Maxwell D Leslie, Andrew D Huber, Yee T Ong, Jacob C Jackson, Kamalendra Singh, Eiichi N Kodama, Hiroaki Mitsuya, Michael A Parniak, Stefan G Sarafianos

Abstract

The K65R substitution in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) reverse transcriptase (RT) is the major resistance mutation selected in patients treated with first-line antiretroviral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). 4'-ethynyl-2-fluoro-2'-deoxyadenosine (EFdA), is the most potent nucleoside analog RT inhibitor (NRTI) that unlike all approved NRTIs retains a 3'-hydroxyl group and has remarkable potency against wild-type (WT) and drug-resistant HIVs. EFdA acts primarily as a chain terminator by blocking translocation following its incorporation into the nascent DNA chain. EFdA is in preclinical development and its effect on clinically relevant drug resistant HIV strains is critically important for the design of optimal regimens prior to initiation of clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 24%
Researcher 7 19%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#1,594,815
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Retrovirology
#65
of 1,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,543
of 196,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retrovirology
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 196,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.