↓ Skip to main content

Gaseous Signaling Molecules in Cardiovascular Function: From Mechanisms to Clinical Translation

Overview of attention for chapter
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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.
Chapter title
Gaseous Signaling Molecules in Cardiovascular Function: From Mechanisms to Clinical Translation
Published in
Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/112_2017_7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung Ryul Lee, Bernd Nilius, Jin Han

Abstract

Carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and nitric oxide (NO) constitute endogenous gaseous molecules produced by specific enzymes. These gases are chemically simple, but exert multiple effects and act through shared molecular targets to control both physiology and pathophysiology in the cardiovascular system (CVS). The gases act via direct and/or indirect interactions with each other in proteins such as heme-containing enzymes, the mitochondrial respiratory complex, and ion channels, among others. Studies of the major impacts of CO, H2S, and NO on the CVS have revealed their involvement in controlling blood pressure and in reducing cardiac reperfusion injuries, although their functional roles are not limited to these conditions. In this review, the basic aspects of CO, H2S, and NO, including their production and effects on enzymes, mitochondrial respiration and biogenesis, and ion channels are briefly addressed to provide insight into their biology with respect to the CVS. Finally, potential therapeutic applications of CO, H2S, and NO with the CVS are addressed, based on the use of exogenous donors and different types of delivery systems.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 13%
Engineering 4 13%
Chemistry 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,965,143
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology
#59
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,751
of 442,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 442,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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