↓ Skip to main content

Rockefeller University Press

A toolbox of anti–mouse and anti–rabbit IgG secondary nanobodies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cell Biology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 12,064)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
400 Mendeley
Title
A toolbox of anti–mouse and anti–rabbit IgG secondary nanobodies
Published in
Journal of Cell Biology, December 2017
DOI 10.1083/jcb.201709115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tino Pleiner, Mark Bates, Dirk Görlich

Abstract

Polyclonal anti-immunoglobulin G (anti-IgG) secondary antibodies are essential tools for many molecular biology techniques and diagnostic tests. Their animal-based production is, however, a major ethical problem. Here, we introduce a sustainable alternative, namely nanobodies against all mouse IgG subclasses and rabbit IgG. They can be produced at large scale in Escherichia coli and could thus make secondary antibody production in animals obsolete. Their recombinant nature allows fusion with affinity tags or reporter enzymes as well as efficient maleimide chemistry for fluorophore coupling. We demonstrate their superior performance in Western blotting, in both peroxidase- and fluorophore-linked form. Their site-specific labeling with multiple fluorophores creates bright imaging reagents for confocal and superresolution microscopy with much smaller label displacement than traditional secondary antibodies. They also enable simpler and faster immunostaining protocols, and allow multitarget localization with primary IgGs from the same species and of the same class.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 190 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 400 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 400 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 85 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 16%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Student > Master 35 9%
Professor 25 6%
Other 64 16%
Unknown 90 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 138 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 17%
Neuroscience 26 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 4%
Physics and Astronomy 11 3%
Other 48 12%
Unknown 95 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 221. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#179,381
of 25,972,223 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cell Biology
#14
of 12,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,868
of 451,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cell Biology
#2
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,972,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 451,947 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 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 97% of its contemporaries.