↓ Skip to main content

Neprilysin degrades murine Amyloid-β (Aβ) more efficiently than human Aβ: Further implication for species-specific amyloid accumulation

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience Letters, August 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 (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Neprilysin degrades murine Amyloid-β (Aβ) more efficiently than human Aβ: Further implication for species-specific amyloid accumulation
Published in
Neuroscience Letters, August 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.08.028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Becker, Andrew Moore, Maura Naughton, Barry Boland, Wolf-Eberhard Siems, Thomas Walther

Abstract

For over a century, aggregated forms of amyloid-β protein (Aβ) have been viewed as a key hallmark of brains affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD). Today, it remains unknown whether Aβ aggregates (oligomers, fibrils or plaques) originate from increased production or decreased catabolism of Aβ. Neprilysin (NEP, neutral endopeptidase) is a ubiquitously distributed peptidase, known to degrade Aβ, amongst other peptides. In this study, we identified differences in NEP-mediated catabolism of murine and human forms of Aβ, using recombinant human NEP, membrane-bound NEP from cells overexpressing the murine peptidase or from human organ preparations with high NEP activity, and purified soluble bovine NEP. NEP degraded murine Aβ (mAβ) faster than human Aβ (hAβ). These findings were observed with full-length Aβ containing 40 or 42 amino acids (Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42) and a truncated form (Aβ4-15), which (i) contains one of the main NEP cleavage sites for Aβ (between positions 9 and 10), (ii) harbours all three amino acid differences between murine and human Aβ sequences, and (iii) is less prone to aggregation and thus might be a simpler model to investigate Aβ biochemistry. While it has previously been shown that mAβ has a far lower propensity to aggregate than hAβ, evidence from this study suggests that a faster NEP-mediated turnover of mAβ may provide additional protection against Aβ aggregation in murine species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 46%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,838,109
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience Letters
#1,047
of 7,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,172
of 342,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience Letters
#10
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 342,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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.