↓ Skip to main content

Phenotypic effects of chronic and acute use of methiopropamine in a mouse model

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Legal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Phenotypic effects of chronic and acute use of methiopropamine in a mouse model
Published in
International Journal of Legal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00414-018-1891-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federica Foti, Matteo Marti, Andrea Ossato, Sabrine Bilel, Eugenio Sangiorgi, Francesco Botrè, Bruna Cerbelli, Alfonso Baldi, Fabio De-Giorgio

Abstract

Methiopropamine (MPA) is a structural analogue of methamphetamine and belongs to the category of the novel psychoactive substances. To the best of our knowledge, no experimental study has been performed to evaluate the organ damage evoked by MPA administration in an animal model. Therefore, the main purpose of the present study was to investigate the histological changes in CD-1 male mice following the chronic administration of MPA. MPA-chronically treated mice showed myocardial damage with features consistent with repeated episodes of ischemia and a pattern of kidney damage and gastrointestinal ischemia, with ischemic-necrotic lesions of variable extent. In agreement with the analogies between MPA and methamphetamine, we link organ damage secondary to MPA administration to the vasoconstrictive effect exhibited by both compounds. Chronically MPA-treated mice did not show changes in body weight, food intake, thermoregulation, muscular strength and motor coordination in the accelerod test. However, acute MPA administration significantly increased their heart rate and promoted vasoconstriction, which were associated with the sudden death of a subset of animals (40% of all chronically treated mice). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that MPA consumption could induce health hazards, highlighting the risk of sudden catastrophic events; therefore, clinicians should be aware of these data and consider MPA screening when no other drug is identified by a urine drug screen.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Sports and Recreations 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
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 15 April 2019.
All research outputs
#20,529,173
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#1,571
of 2,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,217
of 330,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#37
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.