↓ Skip to main content

Toxin-induced models of Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, July 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
4 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
611 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
611 Mendeley
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
Toxin-induced models of Parkinson’s disease
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, July 2005
DOI 10.1602/neurorx.2.3.484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordi Bové, Delphine Prou, Céline Perier, Serge Przedborski

Abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease that appears essentially as a sporadic condition. It results mainly from the death of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. PD etiology remains mysterious, whereas its pathogenesis begins to be understood as a multifactorial cascade of deleterious factors. Most insights into PD pathogenesis come from investigations performed in experimental models of PD, especially those produced by neurotoxins. Although a host of natural and synthetic molecules do exert deleterious effects on dopaminergic neurons, only a handful are used in living laboratory animals to recapitulate some of the hallmarks of PD. In this review, we discuss what we believe are the four most popular parkinsonian neurotoxins, namely 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA), 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), rotenone, and paraquat. The main goal is to provide an updated summary of the main characteristics of each of these four neurotoxins. However, we also try to provide the reader with an idea about the various strengths and the weaknesses of these neurotoxic models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 611 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 7 1%
Unknown 580 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 111 18%
Researcher 96 16%
Student > Bachelor 93 15%
Student > Master 81 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 6%
Other 82 13%
Unknown 113 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 157 26%
Neuroscience 97 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 75 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 62 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 32 5%
Other 52 9%
Unknown 136 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 11 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,832,118
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#155
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,794
of 67,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 67,857 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 8 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