↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Animal Models by Comparison with Human Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of Animal Models by Comparison with Human Late-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease
Published in
Molecular Neurobiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12035-018-1036-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bu-Yeo Kim, Hye-Sun Lim, Yoonju Kim, Yu Jin Kim, Imhoi Koo, Soo-Jin Jeong

Abstract

Despite many efforts to alleviate the pathological conditions of Alzheimer's disease (AD), effective therapeutic drugs have not been developed, mainly because of the lack of molecular information about AD and animal models. We observed the reciprocal regulation of AD-associated genes (AD genes) and their related functions. Upregulated AD genes were positioned in central regions in the protein-protein interaction network and were involved in inflammation and DNA repair pathways. Downregulated AD genes positioned in the periphery of the network were associated with metabolic pathways. Using these features of AD genes, we found that 5×FAD, amyloid β-injected mice, and rats in the initial phases after bilateral common carotid artery occlusion (BCCAO) exhibited patterns that were most similar to those of AD. In contrast, using differentially expressed genes from animal models, we observed that 3×Tg and animals in late phases of BCCAO were positioned close to AD genes.

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 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%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,238,301
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Neurobiology
#672
of 3,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,228
of 327,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Neurobiology
#20
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 327,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.