↓ Skip to main content

Proliferative and Survival Effects of PUMA Promote Angiogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Reports, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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.
Title
Proliferative and Survival Effects of PUMA Promote Angiogenesis
Published in
Cell Reports, November 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.09.023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fan Zhang, Yang Li, Zhongshu Tang, Anil Kumar, Chunsik Lee, Liping Zhang, Chaoyong Zhu, Anne Klotzsche-von Ameln, Bin Wang, Zhiqin Gao, Shizhuang Zhang, Harald F. Langer, Xu Hou, Lasse Jensen, Wenxin Ma, Wai Wong, Triantafyllos Chavakis, Yizhi Liu, Yihai Cao, Xuri Li

Abstract

The p53 upregulated modulator of apoptosis (PUMA) is known as an essential apoptosis inducer. Here, we report the seemingly paradoxical finding that PUMA is a proangiogenic factor critically required for the proliferation and survival of vascular and microglia cells. Strikingly, Puma deficiency by genetic deletion or small hairpin RNA knockdown inhibited developmental and pathological angiogenesis and reduced microglia numbers in vivo, whereas Puma gene delivery increased angiogenesis and cell survival. Mechanistically, we revealed that PUMA plays a critical role in regulating autophagy by modulating Erk activation and intracellular calcium level. Our findings revealed an unexpected function of PUMA in promoting angiogenesis and warrant more careful investigations into the therapeutic potential of PUMA in treating cancer and degenerative diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 19%
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 09 November 2012.
All research outputs
#8,163,460
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cell Reports
#10,141
of 12,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,121
of 202,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Reports
#55
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 202,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.