↓ Skip to main content

Systematic In Vivo Analysis of the Intrinsic Determinants of Amyloid β Pathogenicity

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Biology, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Systematic In Vivo Analysis of the Intrinsic Determinants of Amyloid β Pathogenicity
Published in
PLoS Biology, October 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050290
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leila M Luheshi, Gian Gaetano Tartaglia, Ann-Christin Brorsson, Amol P Pawar, Ian E Watson, Fabrizio Chiti, Michele Vendruscolo, David A Lomas, Christopher M Dobson, Damian C Crowther

Abstract

Protein aggregation into amyloid fibrils and protofibrillar aggregates is associated with a number of the most common neurodegenerative diseases. We have established, using a computational approach, that knowledge of the primary sequences of proteins is sufficient to predict their in vitro aggregation propensities. Here we demonstrate, using rational mutagenesis of the Abeta42 peptide based on such computational predictions of aggregation propensity, the existence of a strong correlation between the propensity of Abeta42 to form protofibrils and its effect on neuronal dysfunction and degeneration in a Drosophila model of Alzheimer disease. Our findings provide a quantitative description of the molecular basis for the pathogenicity of Abeta and link directly and systematically the intrinsic properties of biomolecules, predicted in silico and confirmed in vitro, to pathogenic events taking place in a living organism.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 4%
United States 4 2%
Germany 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 165 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 57 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 23%
Professor 14 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 7%
Student > Master 13 7%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 15 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 43%
Chemistry 28 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 14%
Neuroscience 16 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 17 9%
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 21 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,072,027
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Biology
#8,306
of 8,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,440
of 89,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Biology
#47
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 89,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.