↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Cell and small animal models for phenotypic drug discovery

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Cell and small animal models for phenotypic drug discovery
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s129447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mihaly Szabo, Sara Svensson Akusjärvi, Ankur Saxena, Jianping Liu, Gayathri Chandrasekar Janebjer, Satish S Kitambi

Abstract

The phenotype-based drug discovery (PDD) approach is re-emerging as an alternative platform for drug discovery. This review provides an overview of the various model systems and technical advances in imaging and image analyses that strengthen the PDD platform. In PDD screens, compounds of therapeutic value are identified based on the phenotypic perturbations produced irrespective of target(s) or mechanism of action. In this article, examples of phenotypic changes that can be detected and quantified with relative ease in a cell-based setup are discussed. In addition, a higher order of PDD screening setup using small animal models is also explored. As PDD screens integrate physiology and multiple signaling mechanisms during the screening process, the identified hits have higher biomedical applicability. Taken together, this review highlights the advantages gained by adopting a PDD approach in drug discovery. Such a PDD platform can complement target-based systems that are currently in practice to accelerate drug discovery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 8 23%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 20%
Chemistry 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Unspecified 4 11%
Engineering 3 9%
Other 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,446,268
of 11,500,624 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#337
of 1,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,595
of 261,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#10
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,500,624 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,209 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 261,439 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.