↓ Skip to main content

Synchronized roles of pannexin and connexin in nasal mucosal epithelia

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Synchronized roles of pannexin and connexin in nasal mucosal epithelia
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00405-018-4947-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toyoaki Ohbuchi, Hideaki Suzuki

Abstract

Nasal mucosal epithelial cells express connexins, the prototypical gap junction proteins, and pannexins, a new family of channel proteins homologous to the invertebrate gap junction proteins. The physiological and pathophysiological roles of these transmembrane proteins in nasal mucosa are largely still unknown. Pannexins participate in ATP release into the extracellular space in various tissues, and ATP plays important roles in mucociliary clearance, especially by regulating ciliary beat activity. Therefore, we focused on the functional relationship between connexins, pannexin-1, ATP release, and mucociliary clearance in nasal epithelia. Connexins participate in the generation of intercellular calcium waves, in which calcium-mediated signaling responses spread to contiguous cells through the gap junction formed by connexins to transmit calcium signaling throughout the airway epithelium. Pannexins in the nasal mucosa may contribute to not only ciliary beat modulation via ATP release, but also regulation of mucus blanket components via H2O efflux. The synchronized roles of pannexin and connexin may provide a new insight into effective mucociliary clearance systems in nasal mucosa.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Other 2 18%
Student > Master 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Environmental Science 1 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,498,204
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,210
of 3,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,467
of 331,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#14
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 331,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 51% of its contemporaries.