↓ Skip to main content

Caveats in studies of the physiological role of polyphosphates in coagulation.

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemical Society Transactions, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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.
Title
Caveats in studies of the physiological role of polyphosphates in coagulation.
Published in
Biochemical Society Transactions, February 2016
DOI 10.1042/bst20150220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas L Lindahl, Sofia Ramström, Niklas Boknäs, Lars Faxälv

Abstract

Platelet-derived polyphosphates (polyP), stored in dense granule and released upon platelet activation, have been claimed to enhance thrombin activation of coagulation factor XI (FXI) and to activate FXII directly. The latter claim is controversial and principal results leading to these conclusions are probably influenced by methodological problems. It is important to consider that low-grade contact activation is initiated by all surfaces and is greatly amplified by the presence of phospholipids simulating the procoagulant membranes of activated platelets. Thus, proper use of inhibitors of the contact pathway and a careful choice of materials for plates and tubes is important to avoid artefacts. The use of phosphatases used to degrade polyP has an important drawback as it also degrades the secondary activators ADP and ATP, which are released from activated platelets. In addition, the use of positively charged inhibitors, such as polymyxin B, to inhibit polyP in platelet-rich plasma and blood is problematic, as polymyxin B also slows coagulation in the absence of polyP. In conclusion we hope awareness of the above caveats may improve research on the physiological roles of polyP in coagulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Master 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#12,950,089
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Biochemical Society Transactions
#2,470
of 3,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,941
of 400,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemical Society Transactions
#19
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,335 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 400,385 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.