| Title |
An Update on the Use of Animal Models in Diabetic Nephropathy Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-015-0706-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Boris Betz, Bryan R. Conway |
| Abstract |
In the current review, we discuss limitations and recent advances in animal models of diabetic nephropathy (DN). As in human disease, genetic factors may determine disease severity with the murine FVB and DBA/2J strains being more susceptible to DN than C57BL/6J mice. On the black and tan, brachyuric (BTBR) background, leptin deficient (ob/ob) mice develop many of the pathological features of human DN. Hypertension synergises with hyperglycemia to promote nephropathy in rodents. Moderately hypertensive endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS(-/-)) deficient diabetic mice develop hyaline arteriosclerosis and nodular glomerulosclerosis and induction of renin-dependent hypertension in diabetic Cyp1a1mRen2 rats mimics moderately severe human DN. In addition, diabetic eNOS(-/-) mice and Cyp1a1mRen2 rats recapitulate many of the molecular pathways activated in the human diabetic kidney. However, no model exhibits all the features of human DN; therefore, researchers should consider biochemical, pathological, and transcriptomic data in selecting the most appropriate model to study their molecules and pathways of interest. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Researcher | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 27% |
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 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,355,821
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#647
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,263
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.