↓ Skip to main content

Effects of iron on the aggregation propensity of the N-terminal fibrillogenic polypeptide of human apolipoprotein A-I

Overview of attention for article published in BioMetals, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Effects of iron on the aggregation propensity of the N-terminal fibrillogenic polypeptide of human apolipoprotein A-I
Published in
BioMetals, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10534-018-0101-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rita Del Giudice, Alessandra Pesce, Flora Cozzolino, Maria Monti, Annalisa Relini, Renata Piccoli, Angela Arciello, Daria Maria Monti

Abstract

Specific mutations in APOA1 gene lead to systemic, hereditary amyloidoses. In ApoA-I related amyloidosis involving the heart, amyloid deposits are mainly constituted by the 93-residue N-terminal region of the protein, here indicated as [1-93]ApoA-I. Oxidative stress is known to be an enhancing factor for protein aggregation. In healthy conditions, humans are able to counteract the formation and the effects of oxidative molecules. However, aging and atmospheric pollution increase the concentration of oxidative agents, such as metal ions. As the main effect of iron deregulation is proposed to be an increase in oxidative stress, we analysed the effects of iron on [1-93]ApoA-I aggregation. By using different biochemical approaches, we demonstrated that Fe(II) is able to reduce the formation of [1-93]ApoA-I fibrillar species, probably by stabilizing its monomeric form, whereas Fe(III) shows a positive effect on polypeptide fibrillogenesis. We hypothesize that, in healthy conditions, Fe(III) is reduced by the organism to Fe(II), thus inhibiting amyloid formation, whereas during ageing such protective mechanisms decline, thus exposing the organism to higher oxidative stress levels, which are also related to an increase in Fe(III). This alteration could contribute to the pathogenesis of amyloidosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 17%
Philosophy 1 6%
Unknown 11 61%
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 07 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BioMetals
#459
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,072
of 329,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMetals
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 329,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.