↓ Skip to main content

G Protein-Coupled Receptors - Modeling and Simulation

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 8: Mathematical modeling of g protein-coupled receptor function: what can we learn from empirical and mechanistic models?
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
6 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.
Chapter title
Mathematical modeling of g protein-coupled receptor function: what can we learn from empirical and mechanistic models?
Chapter number 8
Book title
G Protein-Coupled Receptors - Modeling and Simulation
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7423-0_8
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-9-40-077422-3, 978-9-40-077423-0
Authors

David Roche, Debora Gil, Jesús Giraldo, Roche, David, Gil, Debora, Giraldo, Jesús

Abstract

Empirical and mechanistic models differ in their approaches to the analysis of pharmacological effect. Whereas the parameters of the former are not physical constants those of the latter embody the nature, often complex, of biology. Empirical models are exclusively used for curve fitting, merely to characterize the shape of the E/[A] curves. Mechanistic models, on the contrary, enable the examination of mechanistic hypotheses by parameter simulation. Regretfully, the many parameters that mechanistic models may include can represent a great difficulty for curve fitting, representing, thus, a challenge for computational method development. In the present study some empirical and mechanistic models are shown and the connections, which may appear in a number of cases between them, are analyzed from the curves they yield. It may be concluded that systematic and careful curve shape analysis can be extremely useful for the understanding of receptor function, ligand classification and drug discovery, thus providing a common language for the communication between pharmacologists and medicinal chemists.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 17%
Chemistry 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
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 26 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,351,676
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,296
of 4,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,288
of 305,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#88
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 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 4,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 305,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.