| Title |
Normal and pathological dynamics of platelets in humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Mathematical Biology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00285-017-1125-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriel P. Langlois, Morgan Craig, Antony R. Humphries, Michael C. Mackey, Joseph M. Mahaffy, Jacques Bélair, Thibault Moulin, Sean R. Sinclair, Liangliang Wang |
| Abstract |
We develop a mathematical model of platelet, megakaryocyte, and thrombopoietin dynamics in humans. We show that there is a single stationary solution that can undergo a Hopf bifurcation, and use this information to investigate both normal and pathological platelet production, specifically cyclic thrombocytopenia. Carefully estimating model parameters from laboratory and clinical data, we then argue that a subset of parameters are involved in the genesis of cyclic thrombocytopenia based on clinical information. We provide model fits to the existing data for both platelet counts and thrombopoietin levels by changing four parameters that have physiological correlates. Our results indicate that the primary change in cyclic thrombocytopenia is an interference with, or destruction of, the thrombopoietin receptor with secondary changes in other processes, including immune-mediated destruction of platelets and megakaryocyte deficiency and failure in platelet production. This study contributes to the understanding of the origin of cyclic thrombocytopenia as well as extending the modeling of thrombopoiesis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 10% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,269,286
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#282
of 657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,926
of 309,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Mathematical Biology
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 657 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 309,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.