↓ Skip to main content

The emergence of top-down proteomics in clinical research

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
The emergence of top-down proteomics in clinical research
Published in
Genome Medicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/gm457
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Proteomic technology has advanced steadily since the development of 'soft-ionization' techniques for mass-spectrometry-based molecular identification more than two decades ago. Now, the large-scale analysis of proteins (proteomics) is a mainstay of biological research and clinical translation, with researchers seeking molecular diagnostics, as well as protein-based markers for personalized medicine. Proteomic strategies using the protease trypsin (known as bottom-up proteomics) were the first to be developed and optimized and form the dominant approach at present. However, researchers are now beginning to understand the limitations of bottom-up techniques, namely the inability to characterize and quantify intact protein molecules from a complex mixture of digested peptides. To overcome these limitations, several laboratories are taking a whole-protein-based approach, in which intact protein molecules are the analytical targets for characterization and quantification. We discuss these top-down techniques and how they have been applied to clinical research and are likely to be applied in the near future. Given the recent improvements in mass-spectrometry-based proteomics and stronger cooperation between researchers, clinicians and statisticians, both peptide-based (bottom-up) strategies and whole-protein-based (top-down) strategies are set to complement each other and help researchers and clinicians better understand and detect complex disease phenotypes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 27%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 15 11%
Other 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 21%
Chemistry 22 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Engineering 7 5%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 17 13%

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 14 July 2013.
All research outputs
#6,252,727
of 21,347,367 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#998
of 1,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,382
of 173,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 173,991 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.