↓ Skip to main content

Cytochrome P450 Protocols

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter: Cytochrome P450 nomenclature, 2004.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Chapter title
Cytochrome P450 nomenclature, 2004.
Book title
Cytochrome P450 Protocols
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, December 2005
DOI 10.1385/1-59259-998-2:1
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-58829-441-8, 978-1-59259-998-1
Authors

Nelson DR, Nelson, David R., David R. Nelson

Abstract

Aspects of cytochrome P450 (CYP) nomenclature are addressed. The rules for naming a P450 are outlined, though individuals should not name their own genes. The nomenclature is presented as a unifying principle to enhance communication across disciplines. Because of the historical nature of gene sequencing, sometimes names have to be changed, but this is kept to a bare minimum to avoid confusion in the literature. CYP names have now reached four digits owing to proliferation of CYP families in the fungi and lower eukaryotes. For example, CYP5034A1 is from Ustilago maydis. P450 sequence motifs are described that are useful in making global alignments. CYP clans are defined as clusters of CYP families. The clan names are useful in describing higher-order evolution of the gene superfamily. The nomenclature of orthologs and pseudogenes is also discussed.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 181 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 27%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 22%
Chemistry 15 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 39 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,395,364
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#1,936
of 13,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,532
of 153,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,083 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 153,743 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 73% of its contemporaries.