| Title |
Epigenetic Mechanisms of Neurodegeneration in Huntington's Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurotherapeutics, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13311-013-0206-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Junghee Lee, Yu Jin Hwang, Ki Yoon Kim, Neil W. Kowall, Hoon Ryu |
| Abstract |
Huntington's disease (HD) is an incurable and fatal hereditary neurodegenerative disorder of mid-life onset characterized by chorea, emotional distress, and progressive cognitive decline. HD is caused by an expansion of CAG repeats coding for glutamine (Q) in exon 1 of the huntingtin gene. Recent studies suggest that epigenetic modifications may play a key role in HD pathogenesis. Alterations of the epigenetic "histone code" lead to chromatin remodeling and deregulation of neuronal gene transcription that are prominently linked to HD pathogenesis. Furthermore, specific noncoding RNAs and microRNAs are associated with neuronal damage in HD. In this review, we discuss how DNA methylation, post-translational modifications of histone, and noncoding RNA function are affected and involved in HD pathogenesis. In addition, we summarize the therapeutic effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors and DNA binding drugs on epigenetic modifications and neuropathological sequelae in HD. Our understanding of the role of these epigenetic mechanisms may lead to the identification of novel biological markers and new therapeutic targets to treat HD. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 161 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 36 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#495
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,631
of 219,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 219,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.