↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Protein misfolding and aggregation research: Some thoughts on improving quality and utility

Overview of attention for article published in Biotechnology Progress, October 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Protein misfolding and aggregation research: Some thoughts on improving quality and utility
Published in
Biotechnology Progress, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/btpr.1812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina M. Murphy, Christopher J. Roberts

Abstract

Once misfolded and aggregated proteins were as interesting as yesterday's trash, just a bothersome byproduct of productive activities. Today, they attract sustained interest from both basic researchers and practicing engineers. In the burgeoning biopharmaceutical industry, protein misfolding and aggregation pose significant challenges to the economic manufacture of safe and effective protein products. In the clinic, protein aggregates are believed to be pathological agents in a number of serious neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Over the past few years, the quantity of research into biotechnological aspects of protein misfolding and aggregation has skyrocketed. However, the quality of the published work is quite variable. In this brief opinion piece, we describe what we believe are some key features of high-quality publications in protein aggregation. We focus on experimental studies that may also have a kinetic modeling component.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Engineering 5 8%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 19 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,269,273
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from Biotechnology Progress
#152
of 2,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,881
of 223,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biotechnology Progress
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,550 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 223,480 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 96% of its contemporaries.