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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cell Line Techniques and Gene Editing Tools for Antibody Production: A Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00630 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arun K. Dangi, Rajeshwari Sinha, Shailja Dwivedi, Sanjeev K. Gupta, Pratyoosh Shukla |
| Abstract |
The present day modern formulation practices for drugs are based on newer tools and techniques toward effective utilization. The methods of antibody formulations are to be revolutionized based on techniques of cell engineering and gene editing. In the present review, we have discussed innovations in cell engineering toward production of novel antibodies for therapeutic applications. Moreover, this review deciphers the use of RNAi, ribozyme engineering, CRISPR-Cas-based techniques for better strategies for antibody production. Overall, this review describes the multidisciplinary aspects of the production of therapeutic proteins that has gained more attention due to its increasing demand. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 216 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 13% |
| Researcher | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Unknown | 65 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 69 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 6% |
| Chemical Engineering | 10 | 5% |
| Engineering | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Unknown | 65 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,187,644
of 24,761,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#899
of 18,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,785
of 334,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#24
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,761,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 334,078 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 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 94% of its contemporaries.