↓ Skip to main content

Indoxyl sulphate and the kidneys

Overview of attention for article published in Nephrology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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.
Title
Indoxyl sulphate and the kidneys
Published in
Nephrology, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/nep.12580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert J Ellis, David M Small, David A Vesey, David W Johnson, Ross Francis, Luis Vitetta, Glenda C Gobe, Christudas Morais

Abstract

In the last decade, chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as reduced renal function (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73m(2) ) and/or evidence of kidney damage (typically manifested as albuminuria) for at least 3 months, has become one of the fastest growing public health concerns worldwide. CKD is characterised by reduced clearance and increased serum accumulation of metabolic waste products (uremic retention solutes), such as indoxyl sulphate (IS), a protein-bound, tryptophan-derived metabolite that is generated by intestinal micro-organisms (microbiota). Animal studies have demonstrated an association between IS accumulation and increased fibrosis, and oxidative stress. This has been mirrored by in vitro studies, many of which report cytotoxic effects in kidney proximal tubular cells following IS exposure. Clinical studies have associated IS accumulation with deleterious effects, such as kidney functional decline and adverse cardiovascular events, although causality has not been conclusively established. The aims of this review are to: (i) establish factors associated with increased serum accumulation of IS; (ii) review reported effects of IS accumulation in clinical studies; (iii) critique the reported effects of IS in the kidney, when administered both in vivo and in vitro; and (iv) summarise both established and hypothetical therapeutic options for reducing serum IS or antagonising its reported downstream effects in the kidney.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 25 25%
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 30 January 2023.
All research outputs
#20,076,137
of 24,677,985 outputs
Outputs from Nephrology
#759
of 1,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,932
of 406,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nephrology
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,677,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,002 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 406,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.