| Title |
Of Pesticides and Men: a California Story of Genes and Environment in Parkinson’s Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Environmental Health Reports, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40572-016-0083-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beate R. Ritz, Kimberly C. Paul, Jeff M. Bronstein |
| Abstract |
At the start of the postgenomics era, most Parkinson's disease (PD) etiology cannot be explained by our knowledge of genetic or environmental factors alone. For more than a decade, we have explored gene-environment (GxE) interactions possibly responsible for the heterogeneity of genetic as well as environmental results across populations. We developed three pesticide exposure measures (ambient due to agricultural applications, home and garden use, and occupational use) in a large population-based case-control study of incident PD in central California. Specifically, we assessed interactions with genes responsible for pesticide metabolism (PON1); transport across the blood-brain barrier (ABCB1); pesticides interfering with or depending on dopamine transporter activity (DAT/SLC6A3) and dopamine metabolism (ALDH2); impacting mitochondrial function via oxidative/nitrosative stress (NOS1) or proteasome inhibition (SKP1); and contributing to immune dysregulation (HLA-DR). These studies established some specificity for pesticides' neurodegenerative actions, contributed biologic plausibility to epidemiologic findings, and identified genetically susceptible populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Comoros | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 126 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 17% |
| Researcher | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 31 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 36 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 01 April 2024.
All research outputs
#506,875
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#23
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,397
of 414,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 414,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.