↓ Skip to main content

Cellular and molecular modifier pathways in tauopathies: the big picture from screening invertebrate models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurochemistry, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
4 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
125 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.
Article details
Title
Cellular and molecular modifier pathways in tauopathies: the big picture from screening invertebrate models
Published in
Journal of Neurochemistry, February 2016
DOI 10.1111/jnc.13532
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Abnormal tau accumulations were observed and documented in postmortem brains of patients affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) long before the identification of mutations in the Microtubule associated protein tau (MAPT) gene, encoding the tau protein, in a different neurodegenerative disease called Frontotemporal dementia and Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17). The discovery of mutations in the MAPT gene associated with FTDP-17 highlighted that dysfunctions in tau alone are sufficient to cause neurodegeneration. Invertebrate models have been diligently utilized in investigating tauopathies, contributing to the understanding of cellular and molecular pathways involved in disease etiology. An important discovery came with the demonstration that overexpression of human tau in Drosophila leads to premature mortality and neuronal dysfunction including neurodegeneration, recapitulating some key neuropathological features of the human disease. The simplicity of handling invertebrate models combined with the availability of a diverse range of experimental resources make these models, in particular Drosophila a powerful invertebrate screening tool. Consequently several large-scale screens have been performed using Drosophila, to identify modifiers of tau toxicity. The screens have revealed not only common cellular and molecular pathways, but in some instances the same modifier has been independently identified in two or more screens suggesting a possible role for these modifiers in regulating tau toxicity. The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the genetic modifier screens on tauopathies performed in Drosophila and C. elegans models, and to highlight the common cellular and molecular pathways that have emerged from these studies. Here, we summarize results of tau toxicity screens providing mechanistic insights into pathological alterations in tauopathies. Key pathways or modifiers that have been identified are associated with a broad range of processes including, but not limited to, phosphorylation, cytoskeleton organization, axonal transport, regulation of cellular proteostasis, transcription, RNA metabolism, cell cycle regulation and apoptosis. We discuss the utility and application of invertebrate models in elucidating the cellular and molecular functions of novel and uncharacterized disease modifiers identified in large-scale screens as well as for investigating the function of genes identified as risk factors in genome wide association studies from human patients in the post-genomic era. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 121 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 26%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 22%
Neuroscience 20 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 24 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 August 2025.
All research outputs
#2,942,478
of 25,186,033 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurochemistry
#616
of 7,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,269
of 412,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurochemistry
#20
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,186,033 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 412,343 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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.