| Title |
Environmental pollutants and type 2 diabetes: a review of mechanisms that can disrupt beta cell function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-011-2109-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. L. M. Hectors, C. Vanparys, K. van der Ven, G. A. Martens, P. G. Jorens, L. F. Van Gaal, A. Covaci, W. De Coen, R. Blust |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of diabetes mellitus is currently at epidemic proportions and it is estimated that it will increase even further over the next decades. Although genetic predisposition and lifestyle choices are commonly accepted reasons for the occurrence of type 2 diabetes, it has recently been suggested that environmental pollutants are additional risk factors for diabetes development and this review aims to give an overview of the current evidence for this. More specifically, because of the crucial role of pancreatic beta cells in the development and progression of type 2 diabetes, the present work summarises the known effects of several compounds on beta cell function with reference to mechanistic studies that have elucidated how these compounds interfere with the insulin secreting capacity of beta cells. Oestrogenic compounds, organophosphorus compounds, persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals are discussed, and a critical reflection on the relevance of the concentrations used in mechanistic studies relative to the levels found in the human population is given. It is clear that some environmental pollutants affect pancreatic beta cell function, as both epidemiological and experimental research is accumulating. This supports the need to develop a solid and structured platform to fully explore the diabetes-inducing potential of pollutants. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 21% |
| Unknown | 36 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 22 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 48 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 June 2015.
All research outputs
#4,060,932
of 24,397,980 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#1,823
of 5,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,552
of 112,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 112,399 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 90% of its contemporaries.