| Title |
Considerations and guidelines for mouse metabolic phenotyping in diabetes research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-017-4495-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thierry Alquier, Vincent Poitout |
| Abstract |
Mice are the most commonly used species in preclinical research on the pathophysiology of metabolic diseases. Although they are extremely useful for identifying pathways, mechanisms and genes regulating glucose and energy homeostasis, the specificities of the various mouse models and methodologies used to investigate a metabolic phenotype can have a profound impact on experimental results and their interpretation. This review aims to: (1) describe the most commonly used experimental tests to assess glucose and energy homeostasis in mice; (2) provide some guidelines regarding the design, analysis and interpretation of these tests, as well as for studies using genetic models; and (3) identify important caveats and confounding factors that must be taken into account in the interpretation of findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 23% |
| Canada | 11 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 15% |
| France | 4 | 6% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 48% |
| Scientists | 28 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 164 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 56 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 47 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,212,347
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#642
of 5,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,920
of 319,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#22
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 5,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. 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 319,765 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.