↓ Skip to main content

Beneficial Cardiac Effects of Caloric Restriction Are Lost with Age in a Murine Model of Obesity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 574)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Beneficial Cardiac Effects of Caloric Restriction Are Lost with Age in a Murine Model of Obesity
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12265-013-9453-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Majd AlGhatrif, Vabren L. Watts, Xiaolin Niu, Marc Halushka, Karen L. Miller, Konrad Vandegaer, Djahida Bedja, Karen Fox-Talbot, Alicja Bielawska, Kathleen L. Gabrielson, Lili A. Barouch

Abstract

Obesity is associated with increased diastolic stiffness and myocardial steatosis and dysfunction. The impact of aging on the protective effects of caloric restriction (CR) is not clear. We studied 2-month (younger) and 6-7-month (older)-old ob/ob mice and age-matched C57BL/6J controls (WT). Ob/ob mice were assigned to diet ad libitum or CR for 4 weeks. We performed echocardiograms, myocardial triglyceride assays, Oil Red O staining, and measured free fatty acids, superoxide, NOS activity, ceramide levels, and Western blots. In younger mice, CR restored diastolic function, reversed myocardial steatosis, and upregulated Akt phosphorylation. None of these changes was observed in the older mice; however, CR decreased oxidative stress and normalized NOS activity in these animals. Interestingly, myocardial steatosis was not associated with increased ceramide, but CR altered the composition of ceramides. In this model of obesity, aging attenuates the benefits of CR on myocardial structure and function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 29%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 01 June 2013.
All research outputs
#1,069,364
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#10
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,418
of 193,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 193,968 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them