↓ Skip to main content

Neurobiological Elements of Cognitive Dysfunction in Down Syndrome: Exploring the Role of APP

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Psychiatry, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Neurobiological Elements of Cognitive Dysfunction in Down Syndrome: Exploring the Role of APP
Published in
Biological Psychiatry, September 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.08.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martha Millan Sanchez, Sietske N. Heyn, Devsmita Das, Sarah Moghadam, Kara J. Martin, Ahmad Salehi

Abstract

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common cause of cognitive dysfunction in children. Additionally, most adults with DS will eventually show both clinical and neuropathologic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The hippocampal formation constitutes the primary target for degeneration in both AD and DS. Over the past few years, we have studied the molecular mechanisms behind degeneration of this region and its major inputs in mouse models of DS. Our investigation has suggested that the loss of hippocampal inputs, particularly cholinergic and noradrenergic terminals, leads to de-afferentation of this region in the Ts65Dn mouse model of DS. Interestingly, we were able to link the overexpression of amyloid precursor protein (App) gene to degeneration of cholinergic and noradrenergic neurons in DS mouse models. We examined the underlying mechanisms of degeneration of multiple systems with extensive projections to the hippocampus in DS and its mouse models and the role of App overexpression in neurodegeneration. Understanding mechanisms behind hippocampal dysfunction has helped us to test several therapeutic strategies successfully in mouse models of DS. Here we review these strategies and mechanisms and discuss ways to translate our findings into possible interventions in humans.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 19%
Student > Master 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Researcher 16 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 17 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 18%
Neuroscience 19 16%
Psychology 19 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 20 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Biological Psychiatry
#5,190
of 6,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,228
of 142,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Psychiatry
#45
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 142,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.