↓ Skip to main content

The Ups and Downs of Modelling Mood Disorders in Rodents

Overview of attention for article published in ILAR Journal, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Ups and Downs of Modelling Mood Disorders in Rodents
Published in
ILAR Journal, September 2014
DOI 10.1093/ilar/ilu026
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Slattery, John F. Cryan

Abstract

The wide spectrum of disruptions that characterizes major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) highlights the difficulties researchers are posed with as they try to mimic these disorders in the laboratory. Nonetheless, numerous attempts have been made to create rodent models of mood disorders or at least models of the symptoms of MDD and BD. Present antidepressants are all descendants of the serendipitous findings in the 1950s that the monoamine oxidase inhibitor iproniazid and the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine were effective antidepressants. Thus, the need for improved animal models to provide insights into the neuropathology underlying the disease is critical. Such information is in turn crucial for identifying new antidepressants and mood stabilisers. Currently, there is a shift away from traditional animal models to more focused research dealing with an endophenotype-style approach, genetic models, and incorporation of new findings from human neuroimaging and genetic studies. Such approaches are opening up more tractable avenues for understanding the neurobiological and genetic bases of these disorders. Further, such models promise to yield better translational animal models and hence more fruitful therapeutic targets. This overview focuses on such animal models and tests and how they can be used to assess MDD and BD in rodents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 186 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 24%
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 41 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 11%
Psychology 20 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 8%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 41 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 September 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from ILAR Journal
#455
of 518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,575
of 258,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ILAR Journal
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 258,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.