↓ Skip to main content

Rapid recombinant protein expression in cell-free extracts from human blood

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Rapid recombinant protein expression in cell-free extracts from human blood
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-27846-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Burgenson, Chandrasekhar Gurramkonda, Manohar Pilli, Xudong Ge, Abhay Andar, Yordan Kostov, Leah Tolosa, Govind Rao

Abstract

Several groups have recently reported on the utility of cell-free expression systems to make therapeutic proteins, most of them employing CHO or E. coli cell-free extracts. Here, we propose an alternative that uses human blood derived leukocyte cell extracts for the expression of recombinant proteins. We demonstrate expression of nano luciferase (Nluc), Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and Erythropoietin (EPO) in cell-free leukocyte extracts within two hours. Human blood is readily available from donors and blood banks and leukocyte rich fractions are easy to obtain. The method described here demonstrates the ability to rapidly express recombinant proteins from human cell extracts that could provide the research community with a facile technology to make their target protein. Eventually, we envision that any recombinant protein can be produced from patient-supplied leukocytes, which can then be injected back into the patient. This approach could lead to an alternative model for personalized medicines and vaccines.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 28%
Chemical Engineering 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Engineering 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,026,264
of 24,506,807 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#10,497
of 133,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,792
of 333,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#284
of 3,604 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,506,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 333,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,604 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 92% of its contemporaries.