↓ Skip to main content

Various Regulatory Modes for Circadian Rhythmicity and Sexual Dimorphism in the Non-Neuronal Cardiac Cholinergic System

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Various Regulatory Modes for Circadian Rhythmicity and Sexual Dimorphism in the Non-Neuronal Cardiac Cholinergic System
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12265-017-9750-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shino Oikawa, Yuko Kai, Asuka Mano, Hisayuki Ohata, Takahiro Nemoto, Yoshihiko Kakinuma

Abstract

Cardiomyocytes possess a non-neuronal cardiac cholinergic system (NNCCS) regulated by a positive feedback system; however, its other regulatory mechanisms remain to be elucidated, which include the epigenetic control or regulation by the female sex steroid, estrogen. Here, the NNCCS was shown to possess a circadian rhythm; its activity was upregulated in the light-off phase via histone acetyltransferase (HAT) activity and downregulated in the light-on phase. Disrupting the circadian rhythm altered the physiological choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) expression pattern. The NNCCS circadian rhythm may be regulated by miR-345, independently of HAT, causing decreased cardiac ChAT expression. Murine cardiac ChAT expression and ACh contents were increased more in female hearts than in male hearts. This upregulation was downregulated by treatment with the estrogen receptor antagonist tamoxifen, and in contrast, estrogen reciprocally regulated cardiac miR-345 expression. These results suggest that the NNCCS is regulated by the circadian rhythm and is affected by sexual dimorphism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,038,951
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#284
of 579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,188
of 310,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 310,860 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 51% 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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.