↓ Skip to main content

Synthetic Peptides as Protein Mimics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
344 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
Synthetic Peptides as Protein Mimics
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Groß, Chie Hashimoto, Heinrich Sticht, Jutta Eichler

Abstract

The design and generation of molecules capable of mimicking the binding and/or functional sites of proteins represents a promising strategy for the exploration and modulation of protein function through controlled interference with the underlying molecular interactions. Synthetic peptides have proven an excellent type of molecule for the mimicry of protein sites because such peptides can be generated as exact copies of protein fragments, as well as in diverse chemical modifications, which includes the incorporation of a large range of non-proteinogenic amino acids as well as the modification of the peptide backbone. Apart from extending the chemical and structural diversity presented by peptides, such modifications also increase the proteolytic stability of the molecules, enhancing their utility for biological applications. This article reviews recent advances by this and other laboratories in the use of synthetic protein mimics to modulate protein function, as well as to provide building blocks for synthetic biology.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 342 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 22%
Student > Master 44 13%
Researcher 43 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 6%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 83 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 81 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 12%
Engineering 12 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 3%
Other 46 13%
Unknown 96 28%
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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#16,397,951
of 24,157,645 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2,881
of 7,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,347
of 402,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#22
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,157,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,640 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 402,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.