↓ Skip to main content

Bioscreening and expression of a camel anti-CTGF VHH nanobody and its renaturation by a novel dialysis–dilution method

Overview of attention for article published in AMB Express, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Bioscreening and expression of a camel anti-CTGF VHH nanobody and its renaturation by a novel dialysis–dilution method
Published in
AMB Express, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13568-016-0249-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiulei Xue, Xiulei Xue, Xiaobo Fan, Qingrong Qu, Guoqiu Wu

Abstract

The variable regions of the camel heavy chain antibody, also known as nanobody is the smallest antibody with antigen-binding efficiency. CTGF is considered important during extracellular matrix deposition which was involved in the pathogenesis of fibrosis related diseases. There are several anti-CTGF-C nanobody drugs under developing in pharmacy. In this study, we described the screening of a novel anti-CTGF-C nanobody from the peripheral blood of immunized camel by phage display. The screened nanobody was further expressed and purified from E. coli cells. A sophisticated dialysis-dilution method was designed for the in vitro refolding of the nanobody. The results showed that the expressed nanobody was consisted of 135 amino acid and mainly expressed as inclusion body in E. coli cells. The dialysis-dilution method was very effective and the recovery rate of the renaturation was more than 80 %. The ELISA result suggested the nanobody had been well refolded showing a superior CTGF binding activity to the commercial mouse anti-CTGF-C mAb. In conclusion, the anti-CTGF-C nonobody had been successfully screened by phage display. The dialysis-dilution refolding method was very effective and the recovery rate reached over 80 %.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%

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 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,466,957
of 8,372,629 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#222
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,856
of 252,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#23
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,372,629 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 252,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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.