↓ Skip to main content

Review: the Role and Mechanisms of Macrophage Autophagy in Sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Inflammation, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Review: the Role and Mechanisms of Macrophage Autophagy in Sepsis
Published in
Inflammation, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10753-018-0890-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peng Qiu, Yang Liu, Jin Zhang

Abstract

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome caused by infection. The core mechanism underlying sepsis is immune dysfunction, with macrophages, as important cells of the innate immune system, playing an essential role. Autophagy has been shown to be closely related to inflammation and immunity, and autophagy enhancement in sepsis can play a protective role by negatively regulating abnormal macrophage activation, modulating macrophage polarization phenotype, reducing activation of the inflammasome and release of inflammatory factors, and affecting macrophage apoptosis. However, excessive autophagy may also lead to autophagic death of macrophages, which further aggravates the inflammatory response. The mechanisms underlying these functions are relatively complex and remain unclear, but may be related to a variety of signaling pathways such as NF-κB, mTOR, and PI3K/AKT. The administration of drugs to assist in the regulation of macrophage autophagy has become a novel treatment for sepsis. The present review focuses on the role and the potential mechanisms of macrophage autophagy in sepsis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 38 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 August 2022.
All research outputs
#6,162,655
of 24,323,943 outputs
Outputs from Inflammation
#143
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,268
of 339,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Inflammation
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 339,725 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.