↓ Skip to main content

New Tools to Study Contact Activation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
New Tools to Study Contact Activation
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2016.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Rosén

Abstract

The recent availability of a sensitive chromogenic method approach for determination of FXIa activity has been explored for designing sensitive methods for FXIIa and kallikrein, both using FXa formation as the read-out. For both enzymes the assay range 1-10 nmol/L provides a resolution of about 0.8 absorbance units with a total assay time of about 20 min. For studies on activation kinetics, subsampling and extensive dilution can be performed in MES-bovine serum albumin (BSA) buffer pH 5.7 for quenching of enzyme activity and with ensuing determination of FXa generation in a chromogenic FXIa method. Optionally, suitable inhibitors such as aprotinin and/or corn trypsin inhibitor may be included. The stability of FXIa, FXIIa, and kallikrein in MES-BSA buffer was shown to be at least 5 h on ice. In conclusion, the use of a sensitive chromogenic FXIa method either per se or in combination with MES-BSA buffer pH 5.7 are new and potentially valuable tools for the study of contact factor enzymes and their inhibitors. So far, dose-response studies of FXIIa and kallikrein have been limited to purified systems, and hence more data are required to learn whether these new methods might or might not be applicable to the determination of FXIIa and kallikrein activities in plasma.

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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 33%
Researcher 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 33%
Computer Science 1 33%
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 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,483,671
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,950
of 5,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,040
of 415,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 415,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.